Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040015222024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/29/2024 Om Prakash Sharma Son of Late Mangal Ram Sharma, resident of Flat No.17 (A), Second Floor, Comfort Home Society, Mundi Khara, Chajju Majra Road, Khara, Mohali 140301 VERSUS The Union of India and 6 Ors through the Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Govt of India, South Block, New Delhi 1100112:The Chief of Army Staff Age: 0 Occupation : South Block Central Secretariat Raisina Hill New Delhi 110011. 3:The Director General Border Roads Age: 0 Occupation : Sim Sadak Bhawan Ring Road New Delhi 4:The Pay and Accoutns Office (GREF) Age: 0 Occupation : Block 2nd Floor GREF Center Dighi Camp Pune 411025 5:The Officer Commanding Page No.# 2/4 Age: 0 Occupation : HQ 95 RCC C/o 99 APO Jaisalmer Rajasthan 930095 6:The Officer Commanding Age: 0 Occupation : HQ 85 RCC C/o 99 APO Jeevan Koloriang 930085 7:The Officer Commanding Age: 0 Occupation : 128 RCC C/o 99 APO Limeking Daporijo Advocate for the Petitioner : Nalo Pada, Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG O RD E R 18.09.2025 (N. Sailo, J) Heard Mr. B. Kamdak, learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that this appeal is filed against the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA(Civil) No.32(AP)/2024, whereby the application for modification of the earlier order of the learned Single Judge dated Page No.# 3/4 02.03.2024 passed in WP(C) No.114(AP)/2018 was rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner was forced to take compulsory retirement from service on 14.06.2019 and for that reason, the appellant wanted to withdraw his writ petition with liberty to file afresh. However, despite instructions given to his counsel, no such prayer was made and therefore, the writ petition was disposed of on withdrawal without liberty. Hence, the instant writ appeal. [2] Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for all the respondents submits that in fact as per the impugned order dated 20.05.2024, the learned Single Judge had observed that if the appellant was aggrieved with the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner would be able to agitate the same in such a manner as he may be advised. Since the order of compulsory retirement would also include consequential orders to be passed as regards the claim for arrear salaries made by the appellant in his writ petition for the period from 2015 to 2017, no such liberty would be necessary. In other words, the learned DSGI submits that the observation made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.05.2024 requires no interference. [3] We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. [4] The claim of the appellant in his writ petition was for payment of his arrear salary for the period from 09.06.2015 to 22.05.2017. However, the appellant on 02.03.2022 through his counsel submitted before the Court that he is not willing to press the writ petition and accordingly the same was closed as not pressed. It is the further case of the appellant that he Page No.# 4/4 was forced to take compulsory retirement from service on 14.06.2019 and for this reason, he had instructed his counsel to withdraw the writ petition along with a prayer for liberty to file afresh since he was facing difficulties to pursue his case from his home town in Punjab. [5] We have perused the statements made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellant i.e. IA(Civil) No.32(AP)/2024 in connection with WP(C) No.114(AP)/2018 (D/O). Although the appellant has not stated in many words that liberty is necessary so that he can re-agitate his cause with the development which has occurred in the meantime, namely, his compulsory retirement from service, we are of the considered view that it would serve the ends of justice if the prayer made by the appellant is allowed. [6] Accordingly, the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA(Civil) No.32(AP)/2024 is hereby interfered with and the order dated 02.03.2024 passed in the writ petition stands modified with addition of liberty given to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in accordance with law and also as permissible in law. [7] With the above observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant