The State of Assam and 6 Ors. Vs Nur Hussain Mollah

For the Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Konwar, Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department.

¶23

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Dutta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Islam, Advocate.

¶24

– B E F O R E –

¶25

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶26

20.07.2026

¶27

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶28

The State of Assam has preferred this review petition seeking a modification in the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in I.A.(Civil) No.237/2025.

¶29

I.A.(Civil) No.237/2025 was earlier preferred by the State seeking a clarification in the judgment and order dated 05.08.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.133/2023.

¶30

In the afore-noted order dated 20.05.2025, it was clarified that the reckonable date for receiving pension of the employee/writ petitioner would be from 10.06.2003, the date on which the services of the employee/writ petitioner had been regularized.

¶31

This being the ratio of the Division Bench judgment, the judgment of the Single Judge dated 05.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4397/2022 which was assailed against by the State in WA No.133/2023, was disposed off.

¶32

Page No.# 3/4

¶33

However, while concluding the judgment dated 05.08.2023, the learned Division Bench had observed that in view of the decision/discussion and reasons given in the body of the judgment, the writ appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4397/2022 was upheld.

¶34

Since there was some confusion with respect to certain facts, the matter was again placed before the Division Bench for a clarification in the order.

¶35

This Court, vide order dated 20.05.2025 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.237/2025, clarified that in view of the specific finding recorded in the Division Bench judgment dated 05.08.2023, it is reiterated that the services of the writ petitioner would be deemed to be regularized from 10.06.2003 and not before that. This clarifies the issue that pension would be reckonable from 10.06.2003.

¶36

It matters not whether the appeal was dismissed or disposed off. What is to be seen is that the date from which the pension would be reckonable was held to be 10.06.2003, which was in modification of the date prescribed by the learned Single Judge.

¶37

No further clarification is required so far as the Division Bench judgment dated 05.08.2023 passed in WA No.133/2023 is concerned.

¶38

This petition, therefore, is dismissed.

¶39

However, the writ petitioner/respondent would be at liberty to file appropriate review petition, if so desired, before this Court seeking

¶40

Page No.# 4/4

¶41

review of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench.

¶42

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE