Shri Debi Prasad Roy Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shri Debi Prasad Roy Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed as infructuous in view of the petitioner's reinstatement; petitioner permitted to seek subsistence allowance for the suspension period by filing a representation, which the respondent authorities shall grant as soon as practicable.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's writ petition remained maintainable when his grievance had already been addressed by reinstatement vide order dated 04.11.2025 (rendering the petition infructuous). +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has been reinstated, the writ petition becomes infructuous and accordingly stands closed.

Ratio / Principle

In view of counsel's submission on non-grant of subsistence allowance during the suspension period, the petitioner shall file one representation before the respondent authorities, and if such representation is filed, the respondent authorities shall grant the subsistence allowance as soon as practicable.

Key takeaways

The order dated 04.11.2025 produced by respondent counsel shall be marked as 'X' and tagged with the record.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court — WP(C)/5711/2025, decided 06.11.2025, Bench: Justice Robin Phukan (single member). Petitioner Shri Debi Prasad Roy Choudhury had filed a writ petition against respondent authorities (State of Assam, Department of School Education; Director of Elementary Education; District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar; Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar) over a grievance arising from his suspension. Before adjudication, counsel submitted that the grievance had been addressed by the petitioner's reinstatement vide revocation-of-suspension order dated 04.11.2025, which the standing counsel produced in court. Finding the petitioner reinstated, the High Court declared the petition infructuous and closed it. On counsel's further submission that no subsistence allowance had been paid for the suspension period — though no such prayer had been made in the petition — the Court provisioned that the petitioner file one representation with the respondent authorities, failing receipt of which no payment follows; upon filing, the authorities shall grant the allowance as soon as practicable. The reinstatement order was marked as exhibit 'X' and tagged to the record.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010217792025

2025:GAU-AS:14933

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

Case No. : WP(C)/5711/2025

SHRI DEBI PRASAD ROY CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE HARIPADA ROY CHOUDHURY . R/O- HOUSE NO 279 WARD NO 27 C/O H.N. MAZARBHUYA, KALIMOHAN ROAD (NEAR FAMILY COURT) P.O- TARAPUR P.S- SILCHAR DISTRICTCACHAR ,ASSAM, PIN- 788003.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR INDIA CLUB ROAD P.O- SILCHAR PIN- 788001. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SILCHAR SHADARGUT ROAD. P.O -SILCHAR CACHAR PIN - 788001

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R.CHANDA, K DUTTA,MR S CHOUDHURY

Page No.# 2/3

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

Date : 06.11.2025

Heard Mr. K. Abhinava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the Elementary Education Department.

Mr. Abhinava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner, being sought to be addressed in this petition, has already been addressed by the respondent authorities by reinstating the petitioner, vide order dated 04.11.2025, and as such, he submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition.

However, he submits that the petitioner has not been granted the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, though no such prayer is made in this petition.

Mr. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the Elementary Education Department has produced the revocation of suspension order dated 04.11.2025, and submits that the petitioner has already been reinstated.

As the petitioner has been reinstated, this petition becomes infructuous and accordingly, the same stands closed.

However, in view of the submission of Mr. Abhinava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, in

Page No.# 3/3

respect of not granting of the subsistence allowance by the respondent authorities during the period of suspension, it is provided that the petitioner shall file one representation before the respondent authorities, and in the event of such representation being filed, the respondent authorities shall grant the same as soon as practicable.

In terms of above, this writ petition stands closed.

The order dated 04.11.2025, produced by Mr. Borah, shall be marked as ‘X’ and tagged with the record.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant