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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14680

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUNIN BORAH and 2 ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
WP(C) 7252 / 2017



GAHC010149752017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/7252/2017 GUNIN BORAH and 2 ORS S/O LT. BHUBAN BORAH R/O VILL- KHATOWAL, P.O. CHAULKORA ASSISTANT TEACHER 42 NO. CHAULKORA KHATOWAL L.P. SCHOOL, SIVASAGAR.

2: SMT. KABITA GOGOI D/O LT. SINGHESWAR GOGOI R/O CHAULKORA NO. 1 P.O. CHAULKORA P.S. SIVASAGAR ASSISTANT TEACHER 15 NO. CHAULKORA L.P. SCHOOL.

3: MRS. SWARNA BURAGOHAIN CHANGMAI ASSISTANT TEACHER 346 KONWERPUR MUKTAB L.P. SCHOOL R/O VILL- KONWERPUR TEPORTAL GOHAINGAON P.O. KONEARPUR SIVASAGAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECETARY TO THE GOV.T OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6, ASSAM

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -6.

3:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -19.

4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN - 785640

5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN - 785640

6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DEMOW BLOCK SIVASAGAR ASSAM

7:THE TREASURY OFFICER SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S SAIKIA, MR.N J GOGOI,MR.P SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE, MR. S M T CHISTIE (SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

30.04.2026 Date :

Heard Mr. N J Gogoi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr.

B Kaushik, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Education, Assam.

2. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present writ petition, have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for authorizing to the petitioners, their salaries, in arrears, w.e.f March

2012, along with their current salaries.

3. At the outset, Mr. N J Gogoi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner No. 3, Mrs. Swarna Buragohain Changmai, during the pendency of the present proceedings, had passed on and accordingly, the present writ petition is not being pressed on her behalf and the same is only pressed, on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Accordingly, the consideration in the present order is limited to the claims made by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2.

4. The petitioners, in the present writ petition, project that they were appointed, in pursuance to a selection process, initiated in the year 1996. The petitioners were initially appointed as stipendiary teachers, vide appointment orders, issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar. It is further projected that the petitioners, herein, were also deputed to undergo the Basic Training Course, in the year 2002 and 2003, respectively. On conclusion of the said Basic Training Course, it is projected that the petitioners were authorized a scale of pay and they were so drawing their pay and allowances in the scale of pay, as authorized to an Assistant Teacher in a Lower Primary School. The petitioners also contend that GPF accounts were also opened, in their respective cases. As there was an irregularity, in releasing to the petitioners, their current salaries, on account of the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, their salaries had become in arrears. However, such arrears of pay were being released to the petitioners from time to time. Thereafter, it is contended that with effect from March 2012, the respondents, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, proceeded to stop the payment of salaries to the petitioners.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court, by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 1114/2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.04.2007, requiring the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioners before the constituted Committee and the Committee was directed to examine and consider the cases of the petitioners, within the time frame, so prescribed, therein. The State, by way of instituting an appeal in the matter, had assailed t

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 Back to top