The court ruled that past employment irregularities do not excuse non-payment of salaries owed under earlier judicial orders, establishing a duty to pay on the principle of quantum meruit.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, being respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, being respondent No. 2.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 20.12.2014, (Annexure – 12), passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Elementary Department and also to direct the respondent No. 2, 3, and 4 to pay the arrear as well as current salary to the petitioner with effect from June 1994. Notably, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2014, the respondent No. 1 had rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary.

Background Facts:-

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition are briefly stated as under:-

“The petitioner was initially appointed as Asstt. Teacher in Bongaigaon district, in the year 1994. After such appointment he had received salaries only for (3) months. Thereafter, his salary was stopped without any notice or showing any reasons. Thereafter, as per the cabinet decision, the District Elementary Education Officer, Bongaigaon, by order, dated 2- 5-2006, attached the service of the petitioner in 196 No. Til Pukhuri L.P. School, wherein he has been rendering his service till date. But, the respondents have not released his salaries from June, 1994, till date, in spite of repeated demands.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner as well as 5 others had filed a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 143/2009, before this Court, and this Court, after hearing all the parties, vide order, dated 16-03-2010, directed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department to take necessary step to release the arrear as well the current salaries of the petitioner as well as others.

But, due to non-compliance of the said order, the petitioners had instituted a contempt case, being Contempt Petition (C) No. 263/2010, wherein this Court vide order dated 10.01.2014, was pleased to direct to comply order, dated 16-03-2010, passed in W.P. (C) No. 143/2009 in letter and spirit within a period of 3 (three) months. Even then, the respondent did not carry out the order. The petitioners then filed another contempt case, vide No. 521/14, wherein the respondent No. 1/ contemnor submitted before this Court that the order has already been complied with vide order, dated 20-12-2014.

Then having gone through the impugned order, dated 20-12-2014, passed by the respondent No. 1, it has been found that the said order is absolutely perverse and non-est in the eye of law which is also contradictory to other orders, dated 16-3-2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 143/2009 etc. The respondent, instead of releasing the arrear as well as the current salaries of others, has rejected the claim of the petitioner by mentioning some unfounded stories in the impugned order. The ground for such rejection is that in the list of 288 employees, the name of the petitioner was not figured within 82, which is misleading, as salaries also have been provided to the candidates whose name figured in S. No. 125 of the list of candidates, vide annexure 2 and 3 of the writ petition.”

4. The respondent No.3 had filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it had taken a stand that the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers in different ME Madrassas by the DEEO, Bongaigaon during the year 1993-1994 without following any selectio