Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Pranjal Das Vs the State of Assam — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

Home
Gauhati HC
2018
Pranjal Das Vs the State of AssamPranjal Das v. the State of Assam

Dismissed

Pranjal Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC12 Feb 2018WP(C)/159/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged caste status verification directed after previous reinstatement order. Case disposed as not pressed upon counsel's withdrawal.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010006362018

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C) 159/2018

1:PRANJAL DAS

S/O. LATE DEBEN CHANDRA DAS, R/O. VILL. AND P.O. SARUPETA, PIN-781318, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM.

VERSUS

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WELFARE PLAINS TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WELFARE PLAINS TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal DevelopmentReferred¶25
(1994)6 SCC 241 · Who else cites this

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
PRANJAL DAS
respondent
STATE OF ASSAM

Coram

AI extract

HRISHIKESH ROY

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Gauhati HC
Decided on: 12 Feb 2018 · February
Registered: 11 Jan 2018
Case no.: WP(C)/159/2018

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Hrishikesh Roy

Bulbul Ali Vs Lakshyadhar Chamua
9 Feb 2018
Chandana Das and Anr. Vs Samir Sinha
9 Feb 2018Contempt Case (Civil)
Dipak Roy Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.
9 Feb 2018
Jahindra Brahma Vs K. K. Diwivedi
12 Feb 2018

Cite this judgement

Pranjal Das v. the State of Assam, WP(C)/159/2018 (GAU), decided on 12 February 2018.

The Gauhati High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal DevelopmentReferred¶25

Open Authorities

Bench / Coram

HRISHIKESH ROY

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Dismissed

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Where a petitioner was previously reinstated by the High Court despite disputes regarding SC status, he is not exempt from verification exercises. However, petitioner must be allowed to submit all supporting documents to establish SC status before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Petitioner's counsel withdrew; case disposed of as not pressed.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY JUDGMENT

12-02-2018.

Returnable notice was issued in this case on 12.1.2018, with the following order:

Page No.# 2/2

“ The petitioner joined service as an ACS Officer on 15.07.1997 as a reserve category person. But doubting his Scheduled Caste (SC) status, discharge of the petitioner was ordered by the Government on 26.08.1999. But on account of intervention by the High Court on 20.06.2002 in the WP(C) No.5402/1999, a de-novo proceeding was initiated and eventually the 2^nd discharge order was passed on 23.08.2006.

The above order came to be challenged by the aggrieved officer in the Assam Administrative Tribunal and eventually the matter moved to this Court. In the WP(C) No.3440/2010, the High Court found merit to the challenge to the discharge order and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner, under its order of 23.08.2016 (Annexure-14).

The petitioner was reinstated in service on 18.08.2017 (Annexure-16) and currently he is serving as the Asstt. Commissioner at Biswanath Chariali.

The current grievance of the petitioner relates to the verification exercise of his caste status by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the direction issued to him on 18.11.2017 and 05.01.2018 (Annexure-18 and 19) to appear before the Scrutiny Committee.

The learned counsel Mr. A. Sarma submits that when the High Court has ordered for reinstatement of the scheduled caste category officer, further scrutiny of the caste status of the incumbent, is wholly unjustified.

However Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. advocate refers to Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994)6 SCC 241 to argue that when verification of the caste status is required to be made, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is the competent body and accordingly it is argued that the petitioner must cooperate with the verification exercise.

In view of above, let Notice returnable in 4(four) weeks be issued. The Govt. advocate accepts notice for all 4 respondents. Extra copies be furnished.

In the meantime, having regard to the ratio of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the petitioner must cooperate with the State Level Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste status in pursuant to the impugned notice(s) dated 18.11.2017 and 05.01.2018 (Annexures-18 and 19). However, the petitioner should be allowed to furnish all supporting documents, to establish his SC status and the exercise must take into account all relevant documents ” .

Today, when the case is listed on being mentioned, the learned counsel Mr. K. Kalita submits that the litigant has directed him to withdraw the case. The presence of Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, is noted in today’s proceeding, for the purpose of record.

In view of the above submission made by the petitioner’s lawyer, the case is disposed of as not pressed. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Govt. Advocate.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

CNR

GAHC010006362018

Topic

Pension and Retirement Benefits

Bench

Disposal

Dismissed On withdrawal no order for such liberty

Kandarpa Kr. Das Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

12 Feb 2018

Mehbub Ahmed Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

12 Feb 2018