Ram Gopal Prasad Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ram Gopal Prasad Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law, if so advised.

Issue for consideration

Whether the instant writ petition, filed after the petitioner's representation of 14.06.2024 went unanswered, can be considered in its present form in view of the speaking order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Registrar, Gauhati University during its pendency, and whether a reply affidavit is a proper vehicle to challenge that speaking order. +1 more

Court's answer

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order passed by the Gauhati University, it is incumbent on him to challenge it through appropriate proceedings and not by merely countering it by way of a reply affidavit.

Ratio / Principle

The speaking order dated 04.11.2025 was passed by the Gauhati University pursuant to this Court's order dated 10.01.2024 in WP(C)/4593/2021, which required the University to consider the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law and dispose of it by way of a speaking order.

Key takeaways

Upon due consideration, this writ petition in its present form cannot be considered and accordingly stands closed.ratio¶[8.]
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law, if so advised.ratio¶[8.]

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Nelson Sailo, J.; order dated 05.05.2026) disposed of WP(C)/5354/2025 filed by a former Junior Cash Collector of Gauhati University seeking his dues — arrear subsistence allowance and return of 4 KVPs — after suspension from 06.10.2003 and termination on 03.05.2011. His earlier petition WP(C)/4593/2021, challenging the Office Order dated 05.03.2019 stopping all financial benefits pending departmental proceeding, had been dismissed with a direction (reinforced by order dated 10.01.2024) that he file a representation before the Registrar, to be considered strictly in accordance with law and disposed of by a speaking order. After his representation of 14.06.2024 went unanswered he filed the present petition; during its pendency the Registrar passed a speaking order dated 04.11.2025 recording payment of 75% subsistence allowance till termination and refusing the 4 KVPs on the strength of an Enquiry Report dated 12.01.2011 finding misappropriation of Rs.4,02,767.37 and the petitioner's conviction by the Special Judge, CBI in Special Case No.33/2008. Rejecting the petitioner's constructive res judicata contention, the Court held that a grievance against the speaking order must be pursued through appropriate proceedings and not by a reply affidavit, closed the writ petition as it stood, and granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010204322025

2026:GAU-AS:6083

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

Case No. : WP(C)/5354/2025

RAM GOPAL PRASAD

S/O LT. MAHABIR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF BASISTHA LOTAKATA, SANTI NAGAR, GHY-29, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM781006

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION KAHILIPARA MAIN ROAD KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781019

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781006

4:THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-14

5:THE VICE CHANCELLOR

Page No.# 2/4

GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI GUWAHATI- 14

6:THE FINANCE OFFICER GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-1

Advocate for the Petitioner : S YESMIN, MR. A HUDA,MR D MEDHI,MR P R SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, FINANCE,SC, G U

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

ORDER

Date : 05.05.2026

Heard Mr. P. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. A. Sheikh, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University.

[2.] Considering the issue involved and the developments that has taken place, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage.

[3.] The petitioner who was working as Junior Cash Collector in the Gauhati University was placed under suspension w.e.f 06.10.2003, on account of being arrested due to some allegation levelled against him. The petitioner continued to be under suspension till he was terminated on 03.05.2011. The petitioner thereafter initiated WP(C)/4593/2021, challenging Office Order dated 05.03.2019, by which all financial benefits including post retirement benefits was stopped with immediate effect pending departmental proceeding. This Court noticing that the petitioner had already been terminated from service vide

Page No.# 3/4

order dated 15.06.2011, dismissed the writ petition however, by observing that if there remained any benefit entitled to the petitioner including subsistence allowance and return of his 4 KVPs, the petitioner may file a detailed representation before the Registrar, Gauhati University, highlighting the dues receivable by him other that the pension and pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by him prior to his termination from service. That the representation to be filed be considered by the said authority in accordance with law by disposing of the same with a speaking order.

[4.] Although the petitioner submitted his representation in terms of the said direction on 14.06.2024, but since the same had not yielded any result, the petitioner initiated the instant writ petition. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the Registrar, Gauhati University on 04.11.2025, passed a speaking order by which it was observed that the petitioner already received 75% of the subsistence allowance till the date of his termination on 03.05.2011. Further, since Enquiry Report dated 12.01.2011 was with the finding that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,02,767.37, he is not entitled to the 4 KVPs claimed by him. The said claim was further rejected on the ground that the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI in Special Case No.33/2008 and fine was imposed upon him. The said speaking order was enclosed by the respondent University No.4, 5 and 6 in their affidavit filed on 02.02.2026.

[5.] The petitioner in response to the same has filed his reply affidavit on 07.04.2026, contending interalia that the entitlement of the petitioner cannot be withheld in such a manner. Further, the petitioner denied having received the arrear subsistence allowance.

[6.] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the

Page No.# 4/4

speaking order could not have been passed in such a manner in view of the fact that the same is hit by constructive res judicata as this Court in the earlier round of litigation had clearly observed that the petitioner should file a representation claiming whatever dues to him including the 4 KVPs.

[7.] It may however be seen that this Court vide order dated 10.01.2024 in WP(C)/4593/2021 besides observing that the petitioner may file his representation claiming whatever according to him was due to him prior to his termination from service including the claim for 4 KVPs had also observed that the respondent University shall consider the representation to be submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and thereafter, dispose of the same by way of a speaking order. Therefore, that is how the speaking order dated 04.11.2025 has been passed by the Gauhati University through its Register. In such circumstances if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order so passed, it would be incumbent on his part to challenge the same through appropriate proceedings and not by merely countering it by way of a reply affidavit.

[8.] Therefore, upon due consideration, this Court finds that this writ petition in its present form cannot be considered and accordingly the same stands closed. However liberty is granted to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law, if so advised.

[9.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands deposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Speaking order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Registrar, Gauhati University during the pendency of this writ petition, recording that the petitioner had already received 75% of subsistence allowance till termination on 03.05.2011, and rejecting his claim to the 4 KVPs on the basis of the Enquiry Report dated 12.01.2011 finding misappropriation of Rs.4,02,767.37 and his conviction by the Special Judge, CBI in Special Case No.33/2008.¶[4.]
Registrar, Gauhati University · 04.11.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, working as Junior Cash Collector in Gauhati University, was placed under suspension w.e.f 06.10.2003 on account of arrest over certain allegations, and remained under suspension until termination on 03.05.2011 (an earlier termination order is also referred to as dated 15.06.2011).¶[3.]
Prior proceeding
Petitioner instituted WP(C)/4593/2021 challenging Office Order dated 05.03.2019 by which all financial benefits including post-retirement benefits were stopped with immediate effect pending departmental proceeding.¶[3.]
Prior proceeding
This Court dismissed WP(C)/4593/2021, observing that if any benefit remained due to the petitioner, including subsistence allowance and return of his 4 KVPs, he could file a detailed representation before the Registrar, Gauhati University for dues other than pension and pensionary benefits, to be considered in accordance with law and disposed of with a speaking order.¶[3.]
Prior proceeding
By order dated 10.01.2024 in WP(C)/4593/2021, this Court additionally directed that the University shall consider the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law and dispose of it by way of a speaking order.¶[7.]
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted his representation pursuant to the earlier direction on 14.06.2024; it did not yield any result, prompting the instant writ petition.¶[4.]
Prior proceeding
Respondent University Nos. 4, 5 and 6 enclosed the Registrar's speaking order in their affidavit filed on 02.02.2026.¶[4.]
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed a reply affidavit on 07.04.2026 contending that his entitlement could not be withheld in such a manner and denying receipt of arrear subsistence allowance; his counsel argued the speaking order was hit by constructive res judicata.¶[5.]