Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010054552026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/860/2026 ON THE DEATH OF LATE SACHIN DUTTA HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI BINA DUTTA W/O LATE SACHIN DUTTA, R/O RAIDANG KAMARGAON, .O.MURMURIA,P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT,ASSAM PIN-785704 2: SHRI MANASH JYOTI DUTTA S/O LATE SACHIN DUTTA R/O RAIDANG KAMARGAON .O.MURMURIA P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785704 3: SHRI HIMANSHU DUTTA S/O LATE SACHIN DUTTA R/O RAIDANG KAMARGAON .O.MURMURIA P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78570 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, UDYAG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110107 2:TEA RESEARCH ASSOCIATION HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 113 PARK STREET 9TH FLOOR KOLKATA- 700016. Page No.# 2/4 3:THE DIRECTOR TEA RESEARCH ASSOCIATION TOCKLAI TEA RESEARCH INSTITUTE CINNAMARA JORHAT-785008. 4:THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLLER TEA RESEARCH ASSOCIATION TOCKLAI TEA RESEARCH INSTITUTE CINNAMARA JORHAT-78500 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R BORA, R GOGOI,MR. D K BORAH,MR D CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. P BARMAN (BORKAKOTI)(R-2,3),MS S CHANGKAKOTI(R-2,3),MR. A NARZARI (R-2,3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 31.03 .2026 Heard Mr. K. R. Bora, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4; Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondent No.1. 2. The husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicants Nos. 2 and 3 was serving under the respondent No.3. He was terminated from service by the authorities but subsequently reinstated in service on 13.09.2024. However, his back wages and seniority w.e.f. 17.10.2014 till the date of joining was not granted by the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved he filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2523 of 2025 and the same is pending for disposal before this Page No.# 3/4 Court. 3. The petitioner expired on 29.10.2025. However, the learned counsel representing the petitioner/applicant was not informed about the death of late Sachin @Sochin Dutta being the writ petitioner. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the legal heirs who reside in a remote village in the district of Jorhat was unable to contact the counsel as his contact details were not known to them. They were also not well versed with the procedure prescribed for substituting legal heirs as laid down in law. 5. It is only upon the learned counsel for the applicant making enquiries with regard to some instructions which he felt necessary in respect of the pending writ petition that he came to be informed on 06.03.2026 about the demise of the writ petitioner namely late Sachin @Sochin Dutta had expired on 29.10.2025. Immediately thereafter, this interlocutory application has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants therefore, submits that considering the hardship faced by the applicants, more particularly the applicant No.1 and that the claims made by the late petitioner if allowed will have the effect of enhancing the retiral benefits which are received or to be received by the applicant No.1, the prayer for condonation of delay and substitution of the applicants be considered and necessary orders be passed. 5. Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Ms. S. Page No.# 4/4 Baruah, learned CGC for respondent 1 do not object to the prayers made. 6. Upon considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the pleadings available before the Court, it is seen that the claims made by the writ petitioner late Sachin @Sochin Dutta are in respect of his back wages and seniority with effect from 17.10.2014 till the date of his joining which is 03.09.2024. In the event back wages are considered to be payable by the Court and required to be awarded by the respondents, then a substantial financial benefit will be conferred on the applicants, particularly applicant No.1. Therefore, the right to sue survives. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court accepts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and allows the application condoning the delay that has occurred, directing the substitution of the applicant No. 1 namely Smti. Bina Dutta, wife of deceased writ petitioner, applicant No.2 Shri. Manash Jyoti Dutta and the applicant No.3 Shri. Himanshu Dutta, both are the sons of deceased writ petitioner in place of the deceased writ petitioner. 7. This interlocutory application accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants will file the necessary amended cause title before the Registry. JUDGE Comparing Assistant