SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Gau) 318

MANOJIT BHUYAN
BIRENDRA RAJBANGSHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent


Heard

Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel representing respondent no. 5. Private Respondent No. 6 although represented, the learned counsel has not appeared today despite name being shown in the Cause List.

2. The short facts leading to the institution of this case is that the petitioner retired as Sub-Inspector from Assam Police on 31.01.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. Although the petitioner had submitted all the papers facilitating payment of pension, however, the State Respondents have not initiated the processing of the pension papers. In this respect the petitioner had also submitted legal notice on 24.03.2015. As nothing was forth-coming, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, stand taken is that the private respondent no. 6, being the wife of the petitioner but living separately, has instituted Title Suit No. 74/2013 before the Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup (M), Guwahati seeking declaration that she is the legally married wife of the petition





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top