Smti Arpita Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010160702025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4213/2025

¶5

SMTI ARPITA BHATTACHARJEE

¶6

WIFE OF SRI RANJIT KALITA, RESIDENT OF LACHIT NAGAR, SOUTH BYE LANE NO. 2, HOUSE NO. 12, P.O. ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781007, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006

¶9

2:THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006 3:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT -I KAMRUP METRO ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 4:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781027. 5:THE TREASURY OFFICER KAMRUP (METRO) HENGRABARI

Page No.# 2/4

GUWAHATI-78100

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶14

Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Mr. H Talukdar

¶15

Advocates for the respondent(s) :Mr. B Gogoi,

¶16

Addl. Advocate General, Assam

¶17

Mr. A Baruah For respondent No.3 Mr. R Boro For respondent No.4

¶18

Date of hearing & judgment : 11.09.2025

¶19

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

¶20

Heard Mr. H Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, Mr. A Baruah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr. R Boro the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶21

The petitioner herein, who was working as a Stenographer Grade-I in the office of the Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

prior to her retirement took a trip on Leave

¶24

Travel Concession (LTC) to the temple of Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine via New Delhi, Jammu and Katra. The dispute in the instant proceedings is limited to not reimbursing the cost which the petitioner had incurred for herself as well as her husband while travelling the distance from Katra to the temple of Mata Vaishno Devi shrine with the help of horses (pony ride).

¶25

The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the money receipts so enclosed at pages 30 to 33 of the writ petition do not appear to be genuine. This Court further takes note of the affidavit which has been filed by the respondent No.3, wherein the reasons have been given at paragraph 4 as to why the petitioner’s claim in respect to the expenses incurred for taking pony ride for travelling the distance from Katra to the temple of Mata Vaishno Devi shrine and return were refused. Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:

¶26

“4. That with regards to the above contention of the petitioner, the answering deponent begs to state that:-

¶27

a. vide letter No. FCG.8/2024/80/2025 (Annexure-F of the Writ Petition) Smt. Arpita Bhattacharjee was informed about the grounds of rejection of four Numbers of vouchers submitted by her on the journey dated 16/10/2024 and 17/10/2024 for horse-riding. It was also Informed to the petitioner that the said vouchers appears to be not genuine

¶28

b. That Smt. Arpita Bhattacharjee was also asked to submit photograph(s) riding pony and the photographs taken at the Vaishno Devi Temple, but she failed to produce any

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

photograph(s) before the answering deponent.

¶31

c. Further, as per the claim of the petitioner, the cost of horse ride from Banganga to Bhawan at Vaishna Devi Temple in the year 2024 is about Rs.1250/per person for one side, but she claimed Rs.1600/per person from one side. Moreover, the identity of the pony rider is not mentioned in the money receipts filed before the answering deponent.

¶32

d. That apart expenses incurred towards riding pony are not entitled under LTC.

¶33

Considering all these the vouchers submitted by the petitioner on the journey dated 16/10/2024 and 17/10/2024 for horse-riding are rejected.”

¶34

From the grounds and reasons so assigned as well as also taking into account the documents which have been enclosed by the petitioner basing her claim, it is the opinion of this Court that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim in respect to the reimbursement of the amount towards pony ride from Katra to the temple of Mata Vaishno Devi shrine and return was justified.

¶35

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the same stands dismissed.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Smti Arpita Bhattacharjee v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Arpita Bhattacharjee v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abul Kalam Azad Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Deben Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Deben Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Keshab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Keshab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nandadhar Kalita Vs Harmeet Singh, IPS