Madan Chandra Kaibarta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010152052024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:15484

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4000/2024

¶6

MADAN CHANDRA KAIBARTA S/O- RATNADHAR KAIBARTA, RETIRED GRADUATE ASSISTANT TEACHER, BDS GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR HEARING IMPAIRED, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, R/O- STAFF QUARTER, OF BDS DEAF AND DUMB SCHOOL COMPLEX, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781019.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006.

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT ASSAM BELTOLA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781028.

¶10

3:THE PRINCIPAL GOVT. BDS DEAF AND DUMB SCHOOL KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781019.

¶11

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PURKAYASTHA, J.P. BARUAH

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, SC, AG

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 17.11.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Seejie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.M. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. B. Chakrabarty, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 4. None appears for the respondent No. 3.

¶20

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure-4), issued by the respondent No. 1, by which the respondent No. 1 has reviewed its earlier order No. E-234595/278, dated 06.05.2024, and directed that the date of effect of compulsory retirement in respect of Sri Madan Chandra Kaibarta be considered from 01.01.2011, instead of from 12.01.2022, and that the pension of Sri Madan Chandra Kaibarta be granted as per law.

¶21

2.1. It is also to be noted here that vide order dated 06.05.2024, which was reviewed by the impugned order dated 10.07.2024, the respondent No. 1 had converted the penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ to that of ‘compulsory retirement’ w.e.f. 12.01.2022 and to grant the post retirement entitlements as per law, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 14.09.2023, in WP(C)

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

No. 4950/2022.

¶24

3. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam at BDS Government Higher Secondary School for Hearing Impaired, Kahilipara, Guwahati, vide order dated 20.08.1986, and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Graduate Assistant Teacher by the Director of Social Welfare, vide order dated 09.04.1990, and was posted in the same school. Mr. Purkayastha also submits that a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner for being absent in his duties since 01.01.2011 and the said proceeding culminated in dismissal of the petitioner from service as per FR18 of FRs and SRs and the said order was passed on 12.01.2022. Mr. Purkayastha further submits that the order of dismissal, dated 12.01.2022, came to be challenged in a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4950/2022, wherein after hearing both sides, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.09.2023, has not interfered with the finding recorded in the disciplinary proceeding, however, balancing the equity and in the interest of justice, it was directed that the order of dismissal would be converted to one of compulsory retirement, and also directed to consider the post retirement entitlements of the petitioner, which he would be entitled to after his retirement on 30.04.2022. Mr. Purkayastha further submits that the respondent No. 1 had passed the order dated 06.05.2024, and converted the penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ to that of ‘compulsory retirement’ w.e.f. 12.01.2022 and to grant the post retirement entitlements as per law, and thereafter, the said order was reviewed by the respondent No. 1, vide impugned order dated 10.07.2024, and directed that the date of effect of compulsory retirement in respect of Sri Madan Chandra Kaibarta be considered from 01.01.2011, instead of from 12.01.2022, and that the pension of Sri Madan

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

Chandra Kaibarta be granted as per law, and this order is being challenged in this petition.

¶27

4. During the course of hearing, Mr. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has produced a letter dated 14.11.2025, of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, wherein it is stated that as per the final department order, Shri Madan Chandra Kaibarta is to be treated as compulsorily retired w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and he is entitled to pensionary benefits based on qualifying service rendered from 26.08.1986 (date of joining) to 31.12.2010 (date of compulsory retirement), as per provision of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, w.e.f. 01.01.2011, and that the pension will be granted by the Accountant General, Assam as per norms based on proposal to be submitted by the DDO (i.e. Principal, BDS Govt. H.S. School for Hearing Impaired, Kahilipara) through Kritagyata Portal.

¶28

5. When a copy of the aforesaid letter is furnished to Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, he also fairly submits that in fact, the petitioner will be entitled to retirement benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2011, i.e. the date from which the date of compulsory retirement was given effect to. However, Mr. Purkayastha submits that in respect of the entitlement of pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner from 01.01.2011, necessary direction may be passed.

¶29

6. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to pay the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2011 i.e. the date of giving effect of the compulsory retirement to him.

¶30

Page No.# 5/5

¶31

7. The aforementioned exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from today.

¶32

8. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

9. The letter dated 14.11.2025, produced by Mr. Das, shall be marked as ‘X’ and tagged with the record.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Madan Chandra Kaibarta v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Chandra Kaibarta v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sawhel Samad Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ashish Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sri Gourav Banik Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rokib Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nirupama Bhattacharyya Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Karunamay Bhattacharyya Vs Narayan Konwar, IAS and Anr.