Disposed¶31

Dipa Sharma Chakraborty v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Feb 2026WP(C)/620/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constructive res judicata bar to fresh claim for interest; spirit of CPC applicable though CPC not specifically invoked; interest @10% p.a. sought on released arrear salary of deceased husband (Rs.9,51,102/-) earlier directed in W.P(C) No. 2178/2022 by order dated 13.12.2023; representation pending before respondent authorities to be decided within four weeks; writ disposed without notice; Gauhati High Court; Soumitra Saikia, J.; State of Assam; P&RD; Zila Parishad Hailakandi; WP(C)/620/2026; order dated 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without notice as devoid of merit; respondent authorities permitted to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending representation seeking interest within four weeks. No interest direction issued. ¶31

Dipa Sharma Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction that the respondents pay interest at 10% per annum on the arrear salary of her late husband, which was released pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2023 in W.P(C) No. 2178/2022. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The writ petition has no merit and the Court declined to issue notice, while noting the arrear salary had already been released pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2023.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Though CPC is not specifically applicable, its spirit applies and, on the principles of constructive res judicata, the petitioner ought to have made a prayer for release of interest, if any, at the time the earlier proceedings were filed and disposed of by order dated 13.12.2023.

¶28

Key takeaways

No explanations were furnished in the writ petition as to why the prayer for interest was not made, or could not be made, when the earlier writ petition was filed and disposed of.ratio¶29
Since the representation seeking interest is already on file, the respondent authorities were permitted to pass appropriate orders on it within a period of four weeks.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Single Bench, Soumitra Saikia, J.) — Writ petition seeking interest @10% per annum on arrear salary of Rs.9,51,102/- of the petitioner's late husband, released pursuant to the Court's order dated 13.12.2023 in W.P(C) No. 2178/2022. Held: applying the spirit of CPC and the principle of constructive res judicata, the claim for interest ought to have been raised in the earlier proceedings; the petition furnished no explanation for its omission and was found to have no merit, and was taken up for disposal without issuing notice. However, since the petitioner's representation seeking interest was pending, the respondent authorities were permitted to pass appropriate orders on it within four weeks. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010287292025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/620/2026

¶6

DIPA SHARMA CHAKRABORTY

¶7

W/O LATE TUSHAR KANTI CHAKRABORTY, R/O- MUNICIPALITY WARD NO. 6, BLOCK 1, KARIMGANJ TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ, DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788710

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, P AND RD, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER

¶11

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-17

¶12

3:HAILAKANDI ZILA PARISHAD REPRESENTED BY CEO ZILA PARISHAD HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

¶13

4:CEO ZILA PARISHAD HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR MONZUR K CHOUDHURY, R. BARUAH,TANZIM L. CHOUDHURY,MR. S N AHMED,MS. T Y RASHID

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D.

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

09.02.2026

¶21

Heard Mr. Monzur K, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the P&RD.

¶22

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum against the arrear salary payable to the petitioner’s husband and which subsequently under orders of the Court, was released. The petitioner had earlier approached the Court by filing W.P(C) No. 2178/2022 which came to be disposed of by order dated

¶23

13.12.2023 directing the following directions:

¶24

”Considering the limited prayer made in the writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition need not be pending for want of instructions from the respondent authorities. Accordingly, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no.2 will cause an enquiry into the claims made by the petitioner for release of arrear salary of the late husband of the petitioner to an amount of Rs.9,51,102/-. If the amount is found to be payable, then the same shall be released as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the outer limit of 90 (ninety) days from the date of any such order has been passed. The exercise of conducting the enquiry and passing any appropriate order as to the entitlement of the claim of the petitioner shall be made within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the amount as claimed by the petitioner is found to be payable and is not released to her as per the outer limit fixed by the Court which is 90 (ninety) days from the date of passing of the order showing the entitlements of the claims of the petitioner, then the petitioner will be entitled to claim interest at the Bank rates.”

¶25

3. After the writ petition was disposed of, the respondents had released the amount. Subsequently, the petitioner has approached the authority by filing a representation praying for grant of interest @10% per annum. The said prayer

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

not being granted, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

4. Although CPC is not specifically applicable, spirit of CPC is applicable and on the principles of constructive res-judicata, the petitioner ought to have made prayers for release of interest if any at the time when the earlier proceedings were filed which came to be disposed of by order dated 13.12.2023.

¶29

5. Under such circumstances, at this stage, there are no explanations furnished in the writ petition as to why the prayer was not made or could not be made by the petitioner at the time of writ petition was filed and disposed of. The arrear salary due to the petitioner’s husband was released by the respondent pursuant to the orders passed by the Court vide order dated 13.12.2023.

¶30

6. Under such circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition, without issuing notice. However, since the representation has already been filed by the petitioner before the respondent authorities, we permit the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders on the said representation within a period of four weeks from today.

¶31

7. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Dipa Sharma Chakraborty v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipa Sharma Chakraborty v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Rupeswar Saikia and 55 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 20 Ors.

MD Shoriful Islam Vs the State of Assam and Others

Ajit Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and othrs

Rajib Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

Sri Anand Kumar Pradhan Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Madon Ch Ray Vs the State of Assam and Othrs