Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010059422024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1933/2024 ACHYUT KUMAR DAS @ SRIMANTA KUMAR DAS S/O LATE BASANTA KR. DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PADUMBARI, PO GOTANAGAR, PS JALUKBARI, DIST KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007 4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK 6TH FLOOR BELTOLA ROAD HOUSEFED GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI ASSAM 78102 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, MR. O ULLAH,I AMIN,M R CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IWT, SC, AG (A AND E) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. M.D. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the Transport Department; Ms. S. Konwar, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 4 in the Pension Department; and Mr. C. Boruah, learned standing counsel of Accountant General for the respondent No. 5. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner, namely Achyut Kumar Das @ Srimanta Kumar Das, for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to correct his name from Srimanta Kumar Das to Achyut Kumar Das in all his service records and in the Pension Payment Order as well as in all the records relating to his pension and other pensionary benefits. 3. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving in the department of Inland Water Transport, Ulubari and he was regularized vide order dated 07.10.2005, in the name of Srimanta Kumar Das and he retired in the year 2015. During his service tenure, he approached the authority for necessary correction of his name. But, his grievance had not been readdressed by the authority even after his retirement on superannuation. Thereafter, he had filed one representation on 14.08.2023, before the authority, for necessary correction of his name in his service records as well as in the pension records. But, the same also failed to evoke any response. Mr. Ahmed further submits that on account of discrepancy of his name in the Aadhaar Card as well as in the PAN Card, he could not draw his pension and other retirement benefits and therefore, Page No.# 3/4 the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ petition seeking the relief as stated above. 4. Per-contra, Ms. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the Transport Department, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition and the annexures, annexed therewith, submits that as per record of the office, the petitioner joined in service as Srimanta Kumar Das and retired as Srimanta Kumar Das. Ms. Borah further submits that the petitioner had filed one representation before the Executive Engineer, IWT for issuance of non-drawal certificate, wherein also he put his signature as Srimanta Kumar Das and that his all documents, relating to superannuation benefits, including non-drawal certificate, pension & DCRG orders, issued from the Accountant General, were issued in the name of Srimanta Kumar Das. Ms. Borah also submits that the payment of pension was also made in the bank account of Srimanta Kumar Das. 4.1. Further submission of Ms. Borah is that the petitioner earlier had filed one writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 4422/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2021, and there also his name is reflected as Srimanta Kumar Das instead of Achyut Kumar Das. Under such circumstances, Ms. Borah submits that this present writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same may be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Boruah, learned standing counsel of Accountant General, respondent No. 5, submits that the pension papers of the petitioner was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General in the name of Srimanta Kumar Das and the pension order and other pensionary benefits were released in the name of Srimanta Kumar Das and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same may be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have Page No.# 4/4 carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and I find substance in the submission of Ms. Borah and Mr. Boruah, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities. 7. It appears that the petitioner joined the service as Srimanta Kumar Das and also retired as Srimanta Kumar Das. It further appears that the PPO along with the other pensionary benefits was released in the same name. 8. The affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondents in the IWT Department, also reveals that the petitioner has also availed his retirement and pensionary benefits in the name of Srimanta Kumar Das. Even in the W.P.(C) No. 4422/2021, also the petitioner had mentioned his name as Srimanta Kumar Das. As such, there appears to be no fault or lapse on the part of the respondent authorities. The petitioner himself is responsible for the inconvenience, if any, being faced by him. 9. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view that this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, liberty will remain with the petitioner to avail other remedy available to him under the law. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant