Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12599 (GAU)

ARUNA RAJKHOWA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

WP(C)/523/2025 · 2026-08-18

Kaushik Goswami

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010009012025 2026:GAU-AS:11802 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/523/2025 ARUNA RAJKHOWA D/O- LATE MALIRAM RAJKHOWA, R/O- VILLAGE PACHANI BORA GAON, P.O.- KHONGIA, P.S.- DERGAON, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, 785614, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), GUWAHATI-6, DISPUR. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29. 5:SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 29. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS GOLAGHAT DIVISION. 7:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DERGAON RAOD SUB-DIVISION GOLAGHAT. 8:UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS (AUDIT BRANCH) DEPARTMENT DISPUR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MR. U S BORA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MR. S K MEDHI (SC, AG,(A AND E)),SC, AG,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI O R D E R 19.08.2026. Heard Mr. U.S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, Ms. M. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. Mr. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency the matter, it has become infructuous, as the petitioner is receiving Page No.# 3/3 the pensionary amount as claimed in the present writ petition. In view of the aforesaid endorsement, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter. Accordingly the matter stands dismissed for being infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant