JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, representing the two review petitioners.

2. As per the office notes and order dated 10.01.2023, passed in the proceedings before the Lawazima Court, the review petitioners have not taken steps by registered post with A/D and dasti mode for service of notice on the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 despite directions given vide order dated 29.05.2019 and 07.12.2022 in the proceedings before the Lawazima Court.

3. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) 4529/2010, by which the respondents had prayed, amongst others, for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.04.2010, and two impugned orders dated 01.07.2010, and for a direction upon the authorities for payment of salary to the petitioners from the month of September, 2003. By order dated 13.08.2010, this Court had allowed the writ petition by directing as follows:-

“Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

On 11.8.2010, this court directed the learned standing counsel to go through the earlier cases relied upon by the petitioner(s) in order to find out as to whether this case is covered by the decision of the earlier cases which are stated to have dealt with the subject matter of this case.

Mr. Mishra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that he has gone through the cases which are relied upon by the petitioner and it is found that the case of the petitioners is covered by the earlier judgment passed by the Court.

The petitioners eight in number, belong to category of teachers who were terminated from service on 18.05.1992 and whose termination has been set aside by this court in a number of cases.

The prayer made in this writ petition is to allow the petitioners to draw her salary with effect from September, 2003 onwards. Similar nature of cases came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench in WP No. 349/2009 and in that case, the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the respondents to release the salary of the petitioners, which have been withheld from October, 2007, following the orders passed in WP(C) Nos. 3149/2008, 6032/2007 and 1293/2008. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid order dated 9.4.2010, passed in WP No. 349/2009 and other connected cases and as such, the State respondents is, therefore, directed to release the salary of the petitioners which have been withheld with effect of September, 2007 and, thereafter, pay their salary regularly.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.”

4. The learned standing counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ petition had come up for motion on 13.08.2010 and although there is no order-sheet in the writ proceeding that the matter was listed on 11.08.2010, this Court had recorded that on 11.08.2010, the learned standing counsel was given an opportunity to go through earlier cases relied upon by the petitioners, and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed at the motion stage without issuing notice on the respondents. The learned standing counsel for the petitioners has referred to the various statements made in this review petition and has submitted that the case of the respondents was that (i) pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 1986, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers (ATs for short) in vacant posts of Lower Primary Schools in Dhemaji District vide separate orders issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools on 19.12.1989. They were paid their salaries in the year 1994 after a long gap. However, they had come to know that their services were terminated vide order dated 18.05.1992 and that they were entitled to their salaries only upto 1992. Resultantly, the writ petitioners (i.e. respondents herein) had challenged their termination orders by fi