Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010080032025 2026:GAU-AS:5414 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/461/2025 AMARDEEP BASFORE S/O- LATE PUDINA BASFORE, R/O- PALTAN BAZAR, SOLAPARA ROAD, (NEAR NEHRU STADIUM), HOUSE NO.80, GUWAHATI, PIN-781008 VERSUS DR. M. S. LAKSHMI PRIYA COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUWAHATI. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A DASGUPTA, MS B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR P NAYAK, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 20-04-2026 1. Heard Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the sole respondent/contemnor. 2. By order dated 25.04.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 5373/2020, the petitioner Page No.# 2/3 was allowed to withdraw the aforesaid writ petition. However, at the penultimate paragraph, the following observation was made: “…………………. The authorities may do the needful to settle the retirement dues of the writ petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the sole respondent/contemnor referring to the communication dated 09.02.2026 issued by the Municipal Secretary of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), Guwahati submits that the amount of Leave Encashment has already been disbursed to the petitioner and Death- Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG for short) bill amounting to Rs. 7,06,365/- is prepared in favour of the petitioner and approved by the competent authority and the same is being paid to the petitioner within a short period of time. 4. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the sole respondent/contemnor submits that all the pensionary dues have been settled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received her regular monthly pension for a certain period but for last three months. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the sole respondent/contemnor submits that since other pension dues are settled and such non-payment of monthly pension is not only in respect of the petitioner but all the pensioners of the corporation are facing the same problem for result of paucity of fund and the authorities are trying to resolve the same, the contempt petition may be closed. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that nothing survives to adjudicate in the matter on the pension claim of the petitioner being settled. Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands closed. 7. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court in the event, if the DCRG bill is not paid to the petitioner within a reasonable period of time or monthly pension is not paid regularly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant