WP(C) 860/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UB SAHA The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the respond ent authority did not release the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.1985 to 31.03.1988 and subsequent there to his salary was released w.e.f. 01.04.1988 and due to the same the petitioner is losing an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month and also losing his seniority though the post which is being held by him was provin cialised w.e.f. 01.02.1985. Heard Mr. FU Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms M Gogoi , learned Standing counsel for the Education department, who appears at this mot ion stage on behalf of all the respondents. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the natur e of the prayer made herein, the instant writ petition is taken up for final dis posal as this motion stage. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as Assamese language Teacher in Arjan Ali Memorial ME School in the year 1976 and thereafter in the year 1995 the aforesaid school was provincialised by the government of Assam. After provincialisation of the af oresaid school with the sanctioning posts of one Headmaster, two Asstt. Teachers , one Hindi Teacher, one language teacher and one Grade-IV with their respective scale of pay the respondents released salary for those posts but did not releas e the salary of the petitioner as well as one Hindu teacher. Thereafter, ultima tely upon persuasion the salary of the petitioner was released vide order 06.04. 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1998 but not from the date of provincialisation of the post wh ich the petitioner is holding. Hence, the instant writ petition. Mr. Borbhuiya submits that when the government provincialised the school and the post of the petitioner, along with other posts, the government has no right to deprive him of his salary and discriminate the petitioner from the others. When the respondents are paying the salary to the other teachers from the date of pro vincialisation then the petitioner is also entitled to the same. He further poin ted out that the petitioner on 01.01.1992 filed a representation to the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailaikandi, respondent No. 3 herein, but the sai d representation has not yet been disposed of. Ms Gogoi while resisting the submission of the Mr. Borbhuiya contended that afte r 1992 the petitioner did not take up the matter with the authority concerned. T herefore, it would be proper on the part of this Court to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Kahi lipara, respondent No. 2 herein, raising all his grievances, who would consider the same in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties and o n going through the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that it wou ld meet justice if the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation alo ng with a copy of this order to the Director of Elementary Education, Kahilipara , respondent No. 2 herein, within 15 days raising all his grievances and in turn the respondent No. 2 shall consider the said representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receip t of the representation of the petitioner and while disposing of the representa tion the respondent No. 2 shall also take note of the allegation of the petition er that the other provincialised teachers are getting their salary from the date of provincialisation of their schools. Ordered accordingly. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.