Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151052021 2026:GAU-AS:5663-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/229/2021 THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 781005. VERSUS PHAGULAL PRASAD S/O- LATE JANGILAL PRASAD, P.O. PANITOLA RAILWAY STATION, P.S. TINSUKIA, DIST.- TINSUKIA, PIN- 786183. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Talukdar, Standing Counsel, Department of School Education. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Bhattacharya, Legal Aid Counsel. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 24.04.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the appellant/State and Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the heirs of the respondent. The respondent was appointed as an honorary Assistant Teacher in Panitola Hindi L.P. School on 27.05.1977, just days before the school was provincialized on 01.06.1977. At the time of provincialization, the Schools Page No.# 2/3 Managing Committee did not have the authority to appoint teachers and under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisations) Rules, 1977, only teachers with at least 2(two) years of continuous service prior to provincialization and their meeting qualification criteria could have been retained. The respondent, while he was alive, sought regularization of his services but during the course of the proceedings before the Courts of law, it was discerned that many fake and forged documents were filed in support of the claim for regularization and securing salary. FIRs were lodged and later there came the allegation of even the Court order of dropping the case against the respondent having been fabricated. Despite such staggering facts, a Single Judge of this Court, taking into account that the original regularization order passed in favour of the respondent, while he was alive, had not been cancelled or set aside, directed that the salary was required to be paid to him. This order of the learned Sigle Judge has been put to challenge by the appellant/State of Assam. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent/writ petitioner died. The next heirs of the late employee/ respondent have filed an affidavit in the present appeal stating that none of his family members have any interest in any financial implication or in any consequential benefit(s) for which the respondent, while alive, had been fighting for. In that view of the matter, Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate appearing for the State of Assam submits that this case could be closed Page No.# 3/3 as having become infructuous. The writ appeal stands dismissed as infructuous. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant