SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
CHANDRESWAR SAIKIA – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 9573 of 2019, W.P. (C) No. 1772 of 2017, W.P. (C) Nos. 3288, 3329 of 2016
Decided On : 08-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: N. BORAH, H. MAZUMDER, R. GOGOI, J.I. BORBHUIYA
For the Respondents: R. MAZUMDER, A. CHALIHA

Termination orders must be communicated to be effective; failure to do so renders them invalid, affirming the statutory rights of employees to their positions and benefits.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Termination of service - Petitioners appointed as Assistant Teachers in 1989 challenged termination order dated 18.05.1992 - Court found no evidence of proper procedure followed for termination, thus quashing the order - Petitioners entitled to benefits as regular Assistant Teachers. (Paras 34, 35)

(B) Employment Law - Right to salary and benefits - Court emphasized that rights to salary and other benefits are statutory and arise from valid appointments - Termination without proper communication is ineffective. (Paras 22, 30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 1989 and claimed termination without proper notice or procedure. They continued to serve until their termination was challenged in court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination order was not communicated to the petitioners, rendering it ineffective.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were properly terminated and if they were entitled to their positions and benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proper communication of termination, the order is ineffective, and the petitioners should be treated as regular employees.

Result: Termination order set aside; petitioners recognized as regular Assistant Teachers.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) 9573/2019 & WP (C) 3288/2016 and Mr. J.I. Borbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) 3329/2016 & WP (C) 1772/2017. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumder, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department.

2. By filing these petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the show-cause notice No. 4981-5730 dated 30.03.1992 and impugned termination order vide Memo No. 7040-43 dated 18.05.1992 issued by the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhemaji, by which the service of the petitioners have been terminated.

3. Having considered that these writ petitions are analogous on facts and law, the same were heard and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. In WP (C) 9573/2019, the writ petitioners, 14 in numbers, having requisite qualification for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher of L.P. Schools, applied for the said posts pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities. It is contended that after due selection process and on being selected, they were appointed by the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhemaji to the post of Assistant Teachers of L.P. Schools in different schools at Dhemaji in the year 1989. The petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Tulsibari Gandhiji L.P. School and Bordoloni Tiniali L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 respectively; petitioner No. 3 at Garpara L.P. School vide order dated 13.12.1989; petitioner No. 4 at Ratua Pathar L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 5 at Moinapara L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 6 at Padumoni L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 7 at Gosaibari L.P. School vide order dated 13.12.1989; petitioner No. 8 at Bhakat Gaon L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 9 at Padumoni L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 and petitioner No. 10 at Bhakat Koiborta L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 11 at Joyrampur L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 12 at Borbila Kachari L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 13 at Na-nadi Gosaibari L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 and petitioner No. 14 at Mongalati L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 by the Inspector of School, Dhemaji. The petitioners have been transferred from one school to another school, to which they have rendered and discharge their duties in the respective schools.

5. It is contended that the service of the petitioners were confirmed w.e.f. their respective dates of appointment by the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhemaji. It is also contended that the respondent authorities have allowed the petitioners to cross the efficiency bar in their services w.e.f. 01.12.2004. Some of the petitioners were allowed to discharge duties as Headmaster of the schools by the respondent authorities.

6. While the petitioners were serving in the respective schools, the respondent authorities stopped the payment of salary from April, 1996 without any reason. However on the request by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji, the Joint Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam directed the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji to release the salary of the teachers appointed and working against each sanctioned non-planned posts. Accordingly, the monthly salaries of the petitioners were released w.e.f. 01.04.1996 upto July, 2007. Thereafter, although the petitioners were appointed after due selection process and appointed against the valid sanctioned post and their services being confirmed by the competent authority, thereby service book being opened and GPF money being deducted from their monthly salary from 2000 on 06.11.2006, a list was published showing the name of the teachers appointed in the year 1989 getting salary after termination till date, wherein, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top