Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010063962022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2348/2022 BHABANI DAS W/O. LT. SUKUMAR DAS, VILL. NIZ SARIHA (BHUWAPARA), P.O. BAMUNKUCHI, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781326. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BAJALI PATHSALA PIN-781325. 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BAJALI BLOCK PATHSALA PIN-781325. Page No.# 2/3 6:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR LAST GATE GUWAHATI-06. 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER PATHSALA TREASURY PATHSALA DIST- BAJALI ASSAM PIN- 781325. 8:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRALIZED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE LAKHRA CHARIALI GUWAHATI- 34. 9:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA PATHSALA BRANCH DIST- BAJALI ASSAM PIN- 781325 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H TALUKDAR, MRS. M DEKA,B R BRAHMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 09.06.2025 Heard Shri H Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri PK Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Assam as well as Ms. D Das Barman, learned State Counsel, Assam. The petitioner had approached this Court against the action of the respondent authorities to attempt recovery from his pensionary benefits of certain excess Page No.# 3/3 payments made to him during his service. The husband of the petitioner had retired as the Head Master of 1758 No. Ballattary LP School in the district of Barpeta. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court for family pension by filing WP(C)/3859/2020 wherein, an order dated 01.09.2020 was passed pursuant to which, the family pension was sanctioned to her. Shri Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. Shri Bora and Ms. Das Barman, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that in view of such development, there is no requirement to continue with this writ petition. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced by Shri Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed in the meantime, there is no requirement to continue with this writ petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant