Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27079 (GAU)

ABIDA BEGUM LASKAR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.

WP(C)/6925/2024 · 2025-12-07

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010268742024 2025:GAU-AS:16890 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6925/2024 ABIDA BEGUM LASKAR W/O- LATE ALA UDDIN LASKAR, VILL- RAJYESHWARPUR-I, P.O. AND P.S. LALA, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX NEW BUILDING DISPUR-6 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI Page No.# 2/3 P.O. P.S. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6:THE TREASURY OFFICER NALBARI P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM 7:BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA HAILAKANDI BRANCH DISTRICT. HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 8:FATEHA BEGAM LASKAR W/O- LATE. ALA UDDIN LASKAR VILL- RAJYESHWARPUR-I P.O. AND P.S. LALA DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, S. M. ZINNA,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,MS A BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, S A ISLAM(R-8),MR E AHMED (R-8),MR. K A MAZUMDER(R-8),GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE DEPTT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 08.12.2025 Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for respondent No. 2; and Mr. K. A. Mazumder, learned counsel for Page No.# 3/3 the respondent No. 8. It is stated at the bar that the relief sought for in this writ petition has already been granted, as the respondent No. 8 is regularly paying 50% of the family pension to the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed as infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant