Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010144882026 2026:GAU-AS:10805 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3959/2026 NIRANJAN BORAH S/O LATE MOHAN CH. BORAH, R/O SANKARDEV NAGAR, WARD NO 5, P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, ASSAM-781006. 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI -781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI -781007. 4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MORIGAON ASSAM. 6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION DEPTT. SACHIVALAYA Page No.# 2/5 DISPUR ASSAM- 781006. 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781006. 8:THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, AG BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 05-08-2026 Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Saikia, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Ms. B Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General appearing for respondent No. 8 as well as Ms. N Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Finance appearing for respondent No. 7. [2] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the matter is taken up for disposal at this motion stage itself. [3] It is the case of the petitioner that he is covered by the Government Circular, dated 26.10.1978 by which those having the qualification of HSSLC had Page No.# 3/5 been given 2 (two) advanced increments. Although the petitioner had received the advanced increments for some time, but later on, it was denied to him. The petitioner contends that similarly situated persons had approached this Court through WP(C) No. 5630/2010 and this Court, vide judgment and order, dated 22.05.2018 had allowed the writ petition by coming to a finding that the recovery sought for from the petitioners in respect of the advance increments given to them were not sustainable, as the same was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also observed that since the withdrawal of the increment benefit will impact the pay package of the petitioners, the same cannot be retrospectively enforced and accordingly the impugned decision to withdraw the advance increments was set aside and with all legal consequences. [4] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said decision, the Director General of Police, Special Branch, vide D.O. No. 2283, dated 29.09.2018 had directed that the beneficiaries of 2 (two) advance increments, whose pay has already been modified by reducing the benefit and recovered were accordingly allowed to draw the benefits of the 2 (two) advance increments. [5] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the said decision and this can be ascertained from the fact that similarly situated person through WP(C) No. 2373/2024 had approached this Court against the recovery of the advance increments given to him and this Court, vide judgment and order, dated 22.01.2025 by referring to and relying upon the previous decision rendered in WP(C) No. 5630/2010 had allowed the writ petition. The relevant observations Page No.# 4/5 and directions of this Court in the said writ petition is abstracted herein below for ready reference:- “15. This Court herein above, having held that the petitioner was entitled to be authorized the two advance increments in terms of the Circular dated 26.10.1978, the respondent authorities would now examine as to whether the petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits would now call for a revision by reckoning that the petitioner was entitled to continue to draw the said two advance increments till the date of his superannuation. 16. The petitioner, in this connection, shall submit a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Karimganj, Assam, claiming for revision of his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning the said 2(two) advance increments. The respondent authorities, on receipt of such representation from the petitioner shall process the same and after receiving due approval from the departmental authorities, forward the same to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Assam, for revision of his pension and pensionary benefits in the event it is found that the same would mandate a revision by reckoning the two advance increments so permissible to be drawn by the petitioner. The said exercise shall be initiated and concluded by the respondent authorities, including the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Assam, within a period of 3(three) months from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner herein. 17. In the event the revision is so mandated, the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Assam, shall issue a revised PPO and GPO to the petitioner in supersession to the PPO and GPO already issued to him and release to the petitioner the arrears of pension and pensionary benefits now becoming receivable by him, on account of the direction passed herein above. 18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.” [6] The learned senior counsel thus submits that the case of the instant petitioner is also squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court and may be disposed of in similar terms. [7] Mr. Saikia, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 also submits that the petitioner may submit a representation before the Superintendent of Police concerned claiming revision of his pension and Page No.# 5/5 pensionary benefits by recovery of 2 (two) advance increments for the needful, as was directed in the earlier writ petition. He also submits that the petitioner has come belatedly unlike the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5630/2010 and on this ground itself, the petition should be rejected. He, however, submits that if the Court is inclined to consider the claim of the petitioner, the respondent authorities may be given liberty to verify the claim. [8] In view of above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the Superintendent of Police concerned, who shall thereafter carry forward the matter in terms of para 16 & 17 of the judgment and order, dated 22.01.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 2373/2024 abstracted herein above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant