Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2534 (GAU)

SMT. LILY RANI DEVI v. BIJOY BAISHNAB AND ANR.

Cont.Cas(C)/620/2022 · 2026-02-05

Arun Dev Choudhury

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010223652022 2026:GAU-AS:1572 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/620/2022 SMT. LILY RANI DEVI W/O SRI DWIJENDRA NARAYAN ROY, WARD NO. 3, HOLDING NO. 190, BARPARA, BONGAIGAON, P.O. AND DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783380 VERSUS BIJOY BAISHNAB AND ANR. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, CHIRANG, KAJALGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783373 2:RASH NATH BASUMATARY DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KAJALGAON SUB-DIVISION DIST- CHIRANG KAJALGAON ASSAM PIN-78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M CHANDA, DR G J SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, MS. R B BORA (R-1,2),MR. S BORA (R-1,2),MR. D SAIKIA (R-1,2) BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 06.02.2026 Page No.# 2/2 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By the order dated 04.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 7789/2019, it was provided that the reasons for deducting Rs. 50,000/-under order dated 27.06.2013 be intimated to the petitioner, failing which said order dated 27.06.2013 shall stand quashed and the amount would be liable to be reimbursed to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such order has duly been complied with. 4. The other direction as regards claim of the petitioner for release payment against 197 day’s leave salary, it was opined by this court under its order dated 04.12.2019 that such aspect can easily be verified and if it is found entitle, same may be released to the petitioner after making necessary verification. 5. The petitioner has annexed a document dated 01.02.2020, which goes to show that the claim of the petitioner of 197 day’s leave salary was calculated to be 165 by the Inspector of School. However, after verification, 103 days leave salary was sanctioned and was already paid way back on 27.06.2013. 6. In view of the above, in the opinion of this court, the order dated 04.12.2019 has been complied with. 7. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant