Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010157512025 2025:GAU-AS:13255 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No: WP(C)/4609/2025 KHORSING TIMUNG S/O LATE SARMEN TIMUNG R/O RAONGKANGTUL DIPHU P.O. DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM COOPERATION DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBIN ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL (KAAC) DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN 782460 5:THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 6:THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 7:THE DIST. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 8:THE DIST. TREASURY OFFICER DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. J I BORBHUIYA Advocate for : SC K A A C appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 24.09.2025 Heard Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1; Ms. M.D. Borah, learned standing counsel for the Cooperation Department, respondent nos.2; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, respondent nos.3 and 8; Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the KAAC, respondent nos.4, 5, 6 and 7. Page No.# 3/5 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents i.e. respondent no.6 from causing artificial interference by restraining the petitioner in rendering the duty of the petitioner in the office of the respondent no.6 pursuant to his order of appointment dated 25.01.2021 without valid authority of law by colourable exercise of power not conferred on it; a writ in the nature of mandamus holding that the impugned restriction dated 24.07.2025 imposed by the respondents upon the petitioner in entering into the office of the respondent No. 6 to discharge the duties of the petitioner pursuant to his order of appointment dated 25.01.2025 is nothing but malafide exercise of power of the respondent No. 6 beyond its jurisdiction and same is totally illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law; a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from causing any restriction upon the petitioner in discharging his duties in pursuance to his order of appointment dated 25.01.2025 without valid authority of law; and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to act beyond the law. 3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to recommendation made by the Minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee on Compassionate Appointment held on 29.01.2014, and consequent approval granted on 03.01.2020, the petitioner was appointed as LDA in the Office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Diphu, Karbi Anglong vide order dated 25.01.2021. However, his salary was stopped on and from the month of August, 2021 despite rendering service. 4) Under the said facts and circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 4046/2025, wherein the following prayers have been made, viz., to (i) set aside Page No.# 4/5 the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC for short) held on 02.03.2023; (ii) for setting aside the O.M. under memo no. ABP.104/2024/90 dated 18.09.2024, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel Department; (iii) to direct the SLC to approve the appointment and recommendation of the DLC, KAAC in respect of the case of the petitioner; and (iv) to direct the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner. 5) This Court, by an order passed today, i.e. 24.09.2025, had rejected the contention of the petitioner by holding that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would mean that the KAAC would have the authority to appointment the petitioner in Grade-III and/or Grade-IV on compassionate ground vide order dated 25.01.2021, i.e. after about 13 (thirteen) years of the death of his father on 05.12.2007 and made without approval of the State Level Committee and without prior approval of the Finance (SIU) Department, where salary is charged to and/or payable by the Govt. of Assam. Accordingly, it has been held that the appointment order of the petitioner vide Memo No. DRE.13/Pt/86-2017/84 dated 25.01.2021, was be contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of (i) Achyut Ranjan Das & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2006 (4) GLT 674: (2006) 0 Supreme(Gau) 712, and (ii) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 191 and therefore, not enforceable through this Court. 6) It has further been held in the said writ petition that the petitioner has also not been able to demonstrate from any Act, Rules or Notification issued by the KAAC, by which with the requirement of approval from SLC before making appointment on compassionate ground had been either dispensed with and/or done away with. It was also held that the petitioner has Page No.# 5/5 failed to show that the KAAC could have made appointment of the petitioner without prior sanction and/or approval from the Finance (SIU) Department and thereby to burden the State Exchequer with financial liability in respect of the petitioner. 7) In light of such discussions, the said writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 4046/2025 was dismissed. 8) The said decision would squarely be applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case, because the petitioner herein is the writ petitioner in the said W.P.(C) 4046/2025. 9) Consequently, in light of the decision of this Court, rendered today, i.e. 24.09.2025, in W.P.(C) 4046/2025, the petitioner has not been able to sustain the prayers made in this writ petition for any relief whatsoever. Resultantly, this writ petition also fails and the same is dismissed. 10) There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant