WP(C) 882/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) 1. It is a unique case of its kind in which the respondents took 11 years t o implement the order passed by this Court way back in 1996 and that too after f orcing the petitioner to come to the doors of the Court once again for redressal of her grievance. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of the school called New Guwahati Adarsha High School, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati. She on an earlier occasion had ap proached this Court by filing a writ petition being C.R. No. 1149/96 making a gr ievance that she was not paid her due salary. The petitioner was transferred fro m her earlier school by order dated 30.10.92. Pursuant to such transfer, she had joined the present school and had been rendering her services, but she was not paid her pan and allowances w.e.f. June, 1995. Time to time representations made by the petitioner did not yield any result. Situated thus, the petitioner had t o approach this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petition w as disposed of with the following directions: I find that there is no justifiable ground for not paying the salaries of the p etitioner despite services rendered by her diligently and honestly in the afores aid School. Accordingly, I direct the respondents, more particularly respondent No. 4, to pay the salaries to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of rec eipt of the certified copy of this order. 3. After the aforesaid order passed by this Court, review application bein g RA No. 64/96 was filed seeking review of the said order. The review applicatio n was filed by the Headmaster of the school. Same was dismissed by order dated 0 9.10.96 with the following direction. Considering the facts situation, I am of the view that the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 shall take immediate steps for issuing the retention order, that is required at all, and insist compliance of the Court’s order from the Headmast er within a month from today. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are also directed to ma ke an administrative inquiry as to why due salary of the Government employee was not being paid by the concerned authority. The Commissioner and Secretary to th e Govt. of Assam Education Department shall hold further inquiry on this matter fix administrative responsibility on the concerned officials. 4. The petitioner has annexed is of the communications made for payment of salary to her in terms of the aforesaid orders of this Court. Eventually, her ar rear salary was paid, but the respondents once again withheld the pay and allowa nces for the period from 01.06.95 to 31.12.95 which period was also governed by the said orders of this Court. 5. When the petitioner was not paid her pay and allowances for the period f rom 01.06.95 to 31.12.95, she made further correspondences with the authorities, but to no avail. In paragraph-13 and 17 of the writ petition, the petitioner h as made categorical statement that the relevant file seeking view of the judicia l department in respect of the payment of salary to the petitioner for the said period was sent to the judicial department. According to the statement made in paragraph-17, the file was pending with the Secretary of Judicial Department sin ce 20.04.02. It is the case of the petitioner and the Govt. of Assam in the Educ ation Department as per the affidavits filed by them that, in fact, the file wa s sent to the Judicial Department seeking its view and necessary approval. In th is connection, the affidavits filed by the respondents in the Education Departme nt state that the file bearing No. B(3) S. 66/99 was endorsed to the Judicial De partment on 20.04.03. On the other hand, as per the affidavits filed by the Govt . of Assam in the Judicial Department no such file was received from the Educati on Department. 6. In view of the aforesaid contradictory stand on the part of the two diff erent departments of the same Government, this Court recorded its concern in the orders passed on 18.01.07 and 22.01.07. By order dated 22.01.07, as suggested b y the learned counsel for the parties, the Addl. Chief Secretary was requested t o furnish report in respect of missing file. 7. The Addl. Chief Secretary by his letter dated 5th March, 2007 addressed to Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, has expressed his view that in all probability the file was misplaced in the Education Department itsel f, although their records show that it was endorsed to the judicial department. The report furnished by the Addl. Chief Secretary is based on conjectures and su rmises. No definite findings have been recorded. It gives an impression that the Addl. Chief Secretary tried to avoid the responsibility. In one hand he has sta ted that the records of the Education Department show that the file was endorsed to the judicial department , but on the other hand, he has stated that the file was probably misplaced in the Education Department. Nothing has been indicated as to how a description has been derived by the Addl. Chief Secretary. 8. When the petitioner was not paid her salary for the aforesaid period, sh e filed the instant writ petition in 2004. There was no response from anyone of the respondents. However, when the matter was taken up by this Court expressing serious concern for non implementation of the orders passed 10 years back, the r espondents woke up and started filing affidavits one after another. As regards t he payment of salary, the stand of the respondents in the Education Department i s that the file was moved for creation of a supernumerary post in the year 1999. There is no explanation as to why there is delay of three years in moving the f ile for creation of a supernumerary post. There is no explanation as what the de partment did after 1999. 9. As regards the aforesaid file stated to be missing, contradictory stand has been taken by both the departments, i.e. the Education and Judicial Departme nts. While it is the stand of the Education Department that the file was endors ed to the Judicial Department, the stand of the Judicial Department is that the file was never received by it.. For this kind of situation, the Addl. Chief Secr etary was requested to carry out an enquiry. The outcome of the said enquiry has been recorded above. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the matter was tak en by this Court and the respondent No. 3 was directed to file as to why the ord er of this Court has not been implemented for the last 10 years, she has been pa id arrear salary for the aforesaid period. The petitioner has also prayed for in terest for the delayed payment. Apart from the fact that there is delay of about 11 years towards implementation of the aforesaid orders of this Court, the peti tioner has been deprived of her salary for about 11 years for no fault on her pa rt. In such a situation, I am of the considered opinion that she is entitled to receive interest for delayed payment. Accordingly the respondents are directed t o pay interest @ 9% per annum. On the amount with effect from the date, the sam e was payable to him in terms of the orders of this Court. The amount in respect of interest shall be paid to the petitioner positively on or before 31.06.07. 11. The matter does not come to an end in providing relief to the petitioner . One aspect of the matter is that as to how the file in which the proposal was mooted for creation of supernumerary post could be missing. As per the stand of the Education Department, the file was endorsed to the Judicial Department. Mr. T. Islam, learned S.C., Education Department has produced the relevant records ( Register Index) to show that the file was sent to the Judicial Department. On the other hand, it is the stand of the Judicial Department that the Index Regist er does not show the receipt of the file by the Judicial Department. However, th e question remains that although the definite stand was taken by the petitioner that the file was lying with the Judicial Department, but the Judicial Departmen t did not controvert the same by filing any affidavit. It is only when the Cour t expressed its concern, the Judicial Department filed its affidavit denying th at the file was endorsed to it by the Education Department. 12. In view of the above, I issue direction to the Chief Minister’s Vigilanc e Cell to make a proper enquiry as to how the file bearing No. B(3) S.66/99 coul d be missing which led to sufferings to the petitioner. The Chief Minister’s Vig ilance Cell upon enquiry shall fix the responsibility on the erring officials. The enquiry shall be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months w.e.f. 01.06.07. It is further provided that intere st to be paid to the petitioner be realized from the erring officials. 13. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be borne by both the departments, i.e. the Education Departme nt and the Judicial Department. The Registry shall realize the same from the Hea ds of the Departments and pay the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as pos sible. 14. Copies of this order shall be furnished to Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State Counsel and Mr. T. Islam, learned S.C., Education Department for their fol low up action.