Gendu Mohan Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC. ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32

¶11

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TRAINING PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES (ARTP AND PG) DEPTT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BOITAMARI REVENUE CIRCLE BONGAIGAON P.O. AND DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D C NATH, MR. M MONDAL

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 02-02-2026

¶20

Heard Mr. D.C Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.K Baruah, learned Standing counsel for the Finance Department/respondent No. 4, 5 & 6 and Mr. J.K Goswami, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2.

¶21

The case of the petitioner in this writ petition as reflected in the record is that the petitioner had served as Lot Mondal in the Circle Office, Boitamari Revenue Circle in the district of Bongaigaon and he was arrested on 12.03.2024 in connection the ACB Case No.21/24 u/s 7(a) of the PC Act, 1988 based on the FIR dated 12.03.2024 in which it was alleged that the petitioner had demanded money when the informant in the FIR had come for correction of the land record. The petitioner was suspended w.e.f 12.03.2024 pending drawal of departmental proceeding by an order dated 14.03.2024. The subsistence allowances for a period of 90 days was also directed to be released to the petitioner during the first 90 days of suspension. The petitioner was released on

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

bail on 02.05.2024. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.05.2024 to which the petitioner replied notice on 17.05.2024.

¶24

The proceeding against the petitioner was recorded as D.P Case No. 1/2024 and the petitioner states that he participated in the proceeding to the best of his ability. The petitioner was allowed to draw 75% of the monthly salary as the subsistence allowances after the period of 90 days of initial suspension period was over. The petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2025. He thereafter preferred the representation for released of his provisional pension. The petitioner made a representation on 24.02.2025 praying for the release of the retiral benefits. When the petitioner was not paid his provisional pension and other retiral benefit she approached this Court with the following prayers;

¶25

“ Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, call for records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities to release the provisional pension to the petitioner since the date of his retirement on 31-01-2025 as per provision of Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 and/or a writ in the nature to of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities complete the Departmental Proceeding vide D.P Case No. 01/2024 initiated against the petitioner by the District Commissioner

¶26

Bongaigaon in the district of Bongaigaon, Assam and upon perusal of records and considering the show cause, if any, and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make Rule absolute, and/or pass such other/ orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

¶27

Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the provisional pension is being paid to the petitioner.

¶28

Mr. C.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the State respondents has also

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

endorsed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however raised a grievance that the GIS and leave salary money has not been paid to the petitioner.

¶31

On a pointed query by this Court, the learned State counsel had attempted to draw the attention to the relevant notification of that DCRG can be held back till the disposal of the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. However, nothing has been shown to this Court either by way of notification or by any provision of the pension rules that the GIS and leave salary can also be held up by the department. Without expressing our mind on the release of such GIS and leave salary amount since no such prayer are made and leaving it open to the petitioner to raise it in an appropriate litigation, this writ petition is closed with the observation that the provisional pension of the petitioner should not be interfered with by the respondent authorities during the pendency of the criminal litigation or the departmental proceeding without following the due process of law. It shall be open for the petitioner to approach this Court again in case the provisional pension is interfered without following due process of law.

¶32

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Gendu Mohan Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gendu Mohan Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Nani Gopal Goswami and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ashraful Alam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dr. Dimacha Dwibrang Mwchahary Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Rajada Begum Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

All Assam Government Driver and Handyman Association Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Basanti Mazumdar Vs the State of Assam