Subrata Nath Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Subrata Nath Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the relief claimed by the petitioners was confined to grant of seniority, timescale and annual increments for past service rendered prior to regularisation, as opposed to arrears of salary. +2 more

Court's answer

The distinction now sought to be drawn between arrears of salary and service benefit is, in the present context, without any real difference.

Ratio / Principle

The scope of review jurisdiction is very limited: a review is not an appeal in disguise and lies only for correction of errors apparent on the face of the record, not for reconsideration of matters already on record or re-appreciation of the merits or of the reliefs originally claimed.

Key takeaways

Even if the petitioners' original prayer did not expressly seek arrears of salary, the core issue remains unaltered: the claim for seniority, timescale and annual increment for the period prior to regularisation is intrinsically founded upon recognition of such past service as qualifying service.ratio¶63
While dismissing the writ petition, this Court had already recorded a categorical finding that the order of regularization provides that the benefits shall be granted only from the date of regularization.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition - Scope of review - Review is not an appeal in disguise; it lies only for correction of errors apparent on the face of the record, not for reconsideration of matters already on record or re-appreciation of merits or reliefs originally claimed. Petitioners, whose initial appointments were found doubtful and not genuine and whose services were regularized pursuant to the findings of the Manoharan Committee on condition of no salary for past services, sought review of the common order dated 07.03.2025 in WP(C) 6169/2024 (with WP(C) No. 6064/2024) dismissing their writ petition. Contention that the relief was confined to seniority, timescale and annual increments for pre-regularisation service (not arrears of salary) rejected: such claim is intrinsically founded on recognition of past service as qualifying service; the regularization order grants benefits only from the date of regularization and negates claims based on pre-regularisation service; the distinction between arrears of salary and service benefit makes no real difference in context; grant of pre-regularization benefits would run contrary to the very basis of the regularization. No error apparent on the face of the record demonstrated; dissatisfaction with reasoning and conclusion is not a ground for review. Review petition dismissed; no order as to cost.

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010073622025

2026:GAU-AS:3299

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

Case No. : Review.Pet./68/2025

SUBRATA NATH

S/O SOMIRAN CHANDRA NATH, R/O VILL. AND P.O. UMEDNAGAR, P.S. LALA, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.

2: ABDUL MUNIM LASKAR

S/O SAMSUDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. LAKHIRBOND PART II P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKADI ASSAM.

3: ALOM UDDIN MAZARBHUIYA

S/O ABDUL HOQUE MAZARBHUIYA R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN W/NO 3 P.O. RATANPUR ROAD DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

4: NURUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA

S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR BARBHUIYA R/O VILL. AND P.O. VICHINGCHA PART-II DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

5: ABDUL HANNAN LASKAR

S/O LATE DULOB ALI LASKAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. DINONATHPUR PT I DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

Page No.# 2/7

6: NUR AHMED LASKAR

S/O LAE RAKIB ALI LASKAR R/O VLL. SERALIPUR P.O. TANTOO DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

7: SAIDUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA

S/O ILIAS ALI BARBHUIYA R/O VILL. BHATIRKUPA P.O. CHANDIPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

8: NOOR AHMED LASKAR

S/O ABDUL SATTAR LASKAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. MATIJURI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788155

9: IMDADUR RAHMAN LASKAR

S/O ATIQUE RAHMAN LASKAR R/O VILL. SARBANANDAPUR P.O. SARBANANDAPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788163

10: AZIR UDDIN LASKAR

S/O KURSHED ALI LASKAR R/O VILL. DUDPUR P.O. VICHINGCHA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788151

11: SAMSUL ISLAM MAZUMDER

S/O ABDUL MANNAF MAZUMDER R/O VILL. PURBO KITTAR BOND-I P.O. AMALA

Page No.# 3/7

DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788164

12: AHMODUR RAHMAN LASKAR

S/O LUTHFUR RAHMAN LASKAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. SARBANANDAPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 78163

13: ABDUR RAZAK BARBHUIYA

S/O MASHAID ALI BARBHUIYA R/O VILL. VICHINGCHA PT II P.O. VICHINGCHA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788151

14: ABDUL MUKIT CHOUDHURY

S/O MAHMOD ALI CHOUDHURY R/O VILL. AND P.O. NIZ VERNERPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 78161

15: BISWAJIT DAS

S/O BROJEDNRA CH. DAS R/O VILL. BORBOND PT-III P.O. BALIURA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788155

16: ZAKIR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA

S/O HABIBUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA R/O VILL. RONGPUR PT V P.O. RONGPUR SOUTH DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788163

17: PARVIN SULTANA CHOUDHURY

Page No.# 4/7

W/O HABIBUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER R/O VILL TOWN WARD NO. 1(A) P.O. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

18: HUMERA BEGUM MAZARBHUIYA

WO AKLIM UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL. VICHINGCHA PT-II P.O. VICHINGCHA P.S. HAILAKANDI DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SEC. GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.

FINANCE DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY 06

3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY 781019

4:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 78815

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.

Page No.# 5/7

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

06-03-2026

The present review petition, seeks a re-agitation of issues which stood concluded by common order dated 07.03.2025 passed in WP(C) 6169/2024 and another writ petition.

The principal contention arises is that this Court, while dismissing the petition, proceeded on the footing that the petitioners had claimed arrears of salary for the period prior to the regularisation of their service, whereas according to them, the relief was confined to grant of seniority, timescale and annual increments for the past service rendered prior to the regularisation. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited.

A review is not an appeal in disguise. It lies only for correction of errors apparent on the face of the record, and not for reconsideration of matters already on record. Re-appreciation of the merits or re-appreciation of the reliefs originally claimed falls outside the purview of the review.

In the case in hand, even if the contention of the petitioners is accepted that their original prayer did not expressly seek arrears of salary, the core issue remains unaltered. The claim for seniority, timescale and annual increment for the period prior to regularisation is intrinsically founded upon recognition of such past service as qualifying service.

Page No.# 6/7

This Court, while dismissing the petition, has already recorded a categorical finding that the order of regularization provides that the benefits shall be granted only from date of their regularization.

The order of regularization clearly negates any claim of preregularization service. The factual backdrop further fortifies this conclusion.

It is not in dispute that the initial appointments of the petitioners were found to be doubtful and not genuine, and only upon a long legal process coupled with the findings of Manoharan Committee, where their services were ultimately regularized, with the condition that they shall not be entitled for salaries for past services.

The regularization in such circumstances essentially negates the other benefit claim in this petition, such as, timescale and annual increment including seniority etc.

The order of regularization itself is prospective to permit the petitioners to claim seniority or financial progression based on a period of service which is not recognized in the regularisation order, and therefore, the core issue has been decided in the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 6064/2024 (supra).

The distinction now sought to be drawn between arrears of salary and service benefit is, in the present context, without any real difference.

Grant of seniority, timescale, increments for the pre-regularization period would run contrary to the very basis of the regularization as well as the basis on which the writ petition was dismissed.

Page No.# 7/7

Accordingly, it is of the opinion of this Court that no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated in the aforesaid order. The grievance projected by the petitioners is essentially one of dissatisfaction with the reasoning and conclusion of this Court, which cannot be ground for review.

Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.

No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant