THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT (The High Court of , Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI

Writ Petition (C) No.4863/2008

1. SMT. ANIMA RAY, D/O DUGDHANATH RAY, VILL. KHAMARPARA, P.O. SRIJANGRAM, DIST. , ASSAM. 2. SRI RAMDA CH. SARKAR, S/O HAREKRISHNA CH. SARKAR, VILL. & P.O. DUMERGURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 3. MD. MOZIBOR RAHMAN, S/O BILAT ALI, VILL. PAHARTOLI, P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 4. SHAHJAHAN ALI, S/O LT. AKBAR ALI, VILL. & P.O. MALEGARH, DIST. BONGAIGAO, ASSAM. 5. MD. AZIBAR RAHMAN, S/O AHAMMAD ALI, VILL. & P.O. TOPGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 6. MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN, S/O LT. ABDUL HAMID, VILL. KACHERIPETY, P.O. SRIJANGRAM, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 7. SRI ACHINTYA KUMAR SARMAH, S/O THANESWAR DEV SARMAH, VILL. DEOHATI, P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 8. MD. MOFIOR RAHMAN SK. S/O SODAGAR ALI SK, R/O VILL. 4 NO. BASHBARI, P.O. TILPUKHURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. …… PETITIONERS. -Versus-

1. THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2. THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19. 4.THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, NORTH SALMARA, ABHAYAPURI, BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 6. THE HEAD MASTER OF PAKHIRIGURI M.V. SCHOOL, P.O. SRIJANGRAM, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 7. THE HEAD MASTER OF LENGTISINGA M.E. SCHOOL, P.O. DHUMERGURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 8. THE HEAD MASTER OF PARACHAR TELAPARA GIRLS M.E. MADRASSA, P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 9. THE HEAD MASTER OF PIRADHARA M.E. MADRASSA, P.O. MALEGARH, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 10. THE HEAD MASTER OF RANGAPANI M.E. SCHOOL, P.O. RANGAPANI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 11. THE HEAD MASTER OF KACHARIPETI TOPGAON M.E. SCHOOL, P.O. SRIJANGRAM, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. 12. THE HEAD MASTER OF DEOHATI VIDYAPITH M.E. SCHOOL. P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON,ASSAM. 13. THE HEAD MASTER OF SOUTH GIRLS M.E. MADRASSA,

Writ Petition (C) No.4863/2008 1 of 4

P.O. GOALPARA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. …… RESPONDENTS.

Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. M. Khan & Mr. S.K. Roy.

Advocate the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5: Mr. A. Deka, Standing Counsel, Elementary Education.

Advocate the Respondent No.2: Mr. P. Nayak, Standing Counsel, Finance.

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Date of hearing & judgment: 11-07-2017.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel for the eight petitioners. The respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 are represented by Mr. A. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education. The learned standing counsel for the Finance Department Mr. P. Nayak, appears for the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners were appointed as graduate science teachers in M.E. Schools of , under the BEEO’s appointment order(s) dated 28.2.1994 (Annexure-1 series). The appointment order(s) reflect that the appointments were made against newly created posts in middle schools. The services of the appointees were regularized on 1.3.2001 (Annexure-3 series) and the regularized groups were adjusted by the DEEO on 20.3.2003 (Annexure-7 series). The issue here is whether the regularized teachers are entitled to their arrear salary between August, 2000— 19.3.2003, as they were paid their arrears only w.e.f. 20.3.2003. 3. In Assam, during 1994—96, large number of illegal appointments of teachers were made in different schools. When the matter came to light and salaries to the appointees could not be disbursed, the Government in the Cabinet meeting on 21.2.2000, had decided to verify whether the appointments were made through a legal process, against existing vacancies. The S. Monohoran Committee was then constituted, which categorized the petitioners as selected but irregularly appointed, against non- sanctioned posts. Accordingly decision was taken by the Cabinet to regularize the service of this group and to disburse their salary w.e.f. August, 2000. For the other group, categorized as illegal because they were appointed without selection against

Writ Petition (C) No.4863/2008 2 of 4

non-existent posts by the Monohoran Committee, the Government decided to terminate the service of the illegal appointees. 4. On the basis of the above decision, the petitioners who were appointed as science teachers in M.V. Schools on 28.2.1994, were regularized in service, under the order dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure-3 series), issued by the DEEO, Bongaigaon. Subsequently their services were adjusted in different schools on 20.3.2003 (Annexure- 7 series), by the same officer. 5. Following the regularization of service and adjustment, the petitioners are receiving the current salary since 20.3.2003 but their primary grievance is non-payment of their arrear salary between August, 2000—19.3.2003, notwithstanding the stipulation for disbursal of current salary w.e.f. August, 2000, under the Govt. circular dated 10.8.2000 (Annexure-2). 6. The petitioners contend that when the appointments were made through a formal selection process and service was regularized through a Cabinet decision, the Government is duty bound to disburse the salary of the regularized teachers, w.e.f. August, 2000, in terms of the Govt. circular dated 10.8.2000. Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel accordingly submits that the decision to disburse the arrear salary only from 20.3.2003, is illegal and can have no legal basis. 7. Opposing the claim for arrear salary from the earlier date, Mr. A. Deka, the learned standing counsel refers to the communication dated 6.3.2003 (Annexure-6), of the Director of the Elementary Education to project that individual undertaking was obtained at the time of service adjustment not to claim arrear salary for past service and accordingly it is argued that since past claim was waived by the teachers, they are disentitled to claim arrear salary for past service, prior to 19.3.2003. 8. On the appointment of teachers, the Monohoran Committee found that the petitioners were appointed after due selection and accordingly those appointments were categorized as irregular as opposed to the illegal category. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have rendered service without any break, since they were appointed. The services of the appointees were regularized under the Cabinet decision as reflected in the circular dated 10.8.2000 (Annexure-2) and the circular itself states that upon regularization, salary w.e.f. August, 2000, will be disbursed to the teachers. 9. The question is whether the State’s opposition to the claim for arrear salary can be sustained on the basis of the undertaking(s) obtained from the regularized teachers, under the Director’s communication of 6.3.2003 (Annexure-6). 10. When the appointments were made in 1994, only three months’ salary was paid and the appointed teachers were made to serve without salary until their services were

Writ Petition (C) No.4863/2008 3 of 4

regularized and adjusted, on the basis of the Govt. circular dated 10.8.2000 (Annexure- 2). At the stage of regularization, the teachers were in a stage of despair and were hardly in a position to resist the signing of the undertaking(s), forcing them to abandon their claim for arrear salary. It is obvious here that the State, by use of unequal bargaining power, had forced the teachers to furnish undertakings to waive their arrear salary claim. All such covenant to be legally enforceable, must be executed voluntarily and unconscionable contract, enforced through superior bargaining power cannot be enforced to deny the legitimate claim for arrear salary, for the service rendered by the teachers. It is also obligatory for the employer to pay salary when service is extracted and it will hardly be fair to allow the State to use their superior bargaining power to enforce the unconscionable undertaking, to deprive the regularly selected teachers of their arrear salaries. 11. This Court, in Usha Rani Goswami vs. State of Assam reported in (2011) 4 GLR 392, had declared that undertaking(s), which are obtained by compulsion to waive off the arrear salary claim is a unconscionable covenant and such one sided condition cannot be enforced to deny the arrear salary, for the regularized teachers. Hence bearing in mind the ratio laid down in this case and also by the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the arrear salary from August, 2000—19.3.2003. Concluding thus, the respondents are ordered to take necessary steps for disbursal of arrear salary to the petitioners, for the relevant period. The process for disbursal of dues be completed expeditiously and preferably within six months and it is ordered so accordingly. 12. A copy of this order be furnished for due communication to Mr. A. Deka and Mr. P. Nayak, who represent the Department of Elementary Education and the Finance Department, respectively. 13. The case is accordingly allowed, without any order on cost, with the above direction.

JUDGE

Barman

Writ Petition (C) No.4863/2008 4 of 4