Sarala Kakaty Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sarala Kakaty Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No formal writ or mandamus issued; petition disposed of on the learned Standing Counsel's statement that the respondents would consider the petitioner for the immediate next promotion as and when such processes are taken up, coupled with the Court's observation that the respondents, being the role model employer, consider her promotions at least from the year 2022 onwards, if necessary by giving notional benefits, if found feasible. No costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who denies having signed an alleged letter undertaking not to be aggrieved if not afforded promotion, is entitled to consideration for promotion despite that letter. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The respondents, being the role model employer, would look into the aspect of considering the petitioner for her promotions at least from the year 2022 onwards, if found feasible, if necessary by giving notional benefits, the letter being one which she totally denied subscribing to.

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of with no costs, in view of the learned Standing Counsel's statement that the respondents would consider the petitioner for the immediate next promotion as and when such processes are taken up, together with the Court's observation regarding consideration of her promotions from 2022 onwards with notional benefits if feasible.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Rajesh Mazumdar, J.), WP(C)/4767/2022, order dated 09.02.2026: The petitioner, who was denied consideration for promotion on the strength of an alleged letter/application stating she would not be aggrieved if not afforded promotion - a letter she denied ever submitting and whose signatures she denied - sought consideration for promotion at least from the date of the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel (Forest Department) stated that the respondents would consider the petitioner for the immediate next promotion as and when such processes are taken up. The Court observed that the respondents, being the role model employer, would also look into considering her promotions at least from the year 2022 onwards, if found feasible, if necessary by giving notional benefits, the letter being one which she totally denied subscribing to. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010138282022

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

Case No. : WP(C)/4767/2022

SARALA KAKATY BAISHYA W/O DHIREN BAISHYA,

VILL.- KAKAYA, P.O.- KAKAYA, P.S.- BELSOR, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPTT., GUWAHATI-06.

2:PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37.

3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FOREST DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6.

4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NORTH KAMRUP DIVISION RANGIA ASSAM.

5:SALAMAT ALI S/O SHANDO ALI

VILL. KAHARAPARA P.O.- AMDOH P.S.- SARTHEBARI

Page No.# 2/3

DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR A CHETIA,MS S SARMA HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, MR. S ROY (r-5)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

09.02.2026

Heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel Forest Department.

The controversy in this writ petition was regarding the denial of consideration of promotion to the writ petitioner on the basis of her alleged application that she had undertaken not to be aggrieved, if she was not afforded promotion. The writ petition was filed on the basis that the petitioner had denied ever submitting any such letter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner denies the signatures on the aforesaid letter.

On the last occasion, the matter was adjourned since the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a proposal that the petitioner perhaps would be satisfied to a great extent, if her promotion is considered immediately and henceforth from the disposal of this writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that the respondent authorities would consider the petitioner for the immediate next promotion as and when such processes are taken up.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a submission that

Page No.# 3/3

the respondents may be directed to consider her case for promotion from at least the date when she had preferred the writ petition.

This Court observes that the respondents, being the role model employer would also look into that aspect of the matter and if found feasible, consider the petitioner for her promotions at least from the year 2022 onwards if necessary by giving notional benefits to the petitioner, which had been directed to her due to a letter which she totally denied subscribing to.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

No costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant