None appeared for the petitioner despite previous court directions. The petitioner is not present on the date of hearing. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudication on merits.
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.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010237472015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5931/2015
MUSLIM UDDIN BARLASKAR
S/O- LT. MONTAJ ALI BARLASKAR, VILL. and P.O.- BARJATRAPUR, P.S.BORKHOLA, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 8 ORS, TO BE REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DIPSUR GHY- 6.
3:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM P and P G DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6.
4:THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6.
5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GHY- 7.
6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A and E ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY- 29. 7:THE STATE BANK OF INDIA TO BE REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER SBI CPPC SETHI TRUST BUILDING BANGAGHAR GHY- 5. 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER CACHAR TREASURY SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. 9:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA SILCHAR MAIN BRANCH PARK ROAD SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRM A BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PENSION
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
O R D E R
15.11.2021
None appears for the petitioner on call. On last occasions also, none appeared for the petitioner on call. Mr. K. K. Dey, the learned counsel for the respondent State Bank of India is present. Also present Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned
Page No.# 3/3
Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 8 and the learned counsel for the Pension Department, Assam.
Vide order dated 24.02.2020, this court directed the petitioner to file their affidavit-in-reply within a period of one week. No such affidavit-in-reply has also been filed.
Mr. K. K. Dey, the learned counsel for the respondent State Bank of India (SBI) states that the pension paid to the petitioner as per the pre-revised scale of pay is more then what the pension would be as per the revised scale of pay. In other words, if the pension is paid to the petitioner in the revised scale of pay, the total amount received would be less then what the petitioner is presently receiving.
Be that as it may, we are not entering into the merit of this case. Since none appears for two occasions. Today also there is nobody to represent the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Muslim Uddin Barlaskar
The State of Assam
The Commissioner and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam Home Deptt.
The Secy. to the Govt. of Assam P and P G Deptt.
The Commissioner and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam Finance Deptt.
The Director General of Police Assam
Arun Dev Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
