Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010071582023 2026:GAU-AS:7316 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1893/2023 PURABI BARUAH W/O- DR. AMRIT GOSWAMI, R/O- FLAT NO. 2G, BLOCK-B, BHIKAMJI CRYSTALS, PRASHANTI NIVAS, TRIPURA ROAD, JAYANAGAR, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI. 2:DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION KAHILIPARA MAIN ROAD KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) ASSAM-781019. 3:PRINCIPAL NAHARKATIYA COLLEGE NAHARKATIYA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM 4:GOVERNING BODY OF NAHARKATIYA COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NAHARKATIYA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM Page No.# 2/11 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H RAHMAN, MS P AGARWAL,MR I HASIEB,MR. B J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU, MS T WAPANGLA (R3, R4),MR. D GOGOI (R3, R4),SC, HIGHER EDU,MR. R MAZUMDAR (r-3,4),MR H BEZBARUA (r-3,4),MR. R DEKA (r-3,4) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN 25.05.2026 Heard Mr H Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, appearing for the respondent No. 2, and Mr D Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for regularization of her leave as well as salary w.e.f. 26.09.2010 till her superannuation. The petitioner has also prayed for the retirement benefits after her superannuation. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was working as a Senior Grade Lecturer in Naharkatia College and in the year, 2005, more particularly, on 27.01.2005, she applied for leave on medical grounds, and that she extended her leave application from time to time due to her illness and that she finally joined on 15.06.2005 to continue her service. However, she stated that her health condition deteriorated and she applied for leave again w.e.f. 02.07.2005 till 25.10.2005, and she submitted her medical certificate as proof. She stated, thereafter, that she got little better and she joined the duty again on 26.10.2005, but then again her condition got worse and she applied for leave from Page No.# 3/11 28.10.2005 with supporting medical certificate. 4. She then stated that due to her health condition, she extended her leave from time to time and that she got a letter on 12.03.2007, from the Principal of the College and in response to the said letter, she visited her college on 16.03.2007, to fill up certain documents relating to her GPF Account. She also stated that on 20.11.2008, as well as on 10.03.2009, she got letters from the Principal of her college, requesting her to regularize her leave, but she stated that in the said letters, no specific period was mentioned. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear vide letter dated 02.01.2010, before the Medical Board, at Assam Medical College, on 20.01.2010, in order to see whether she would be fit to discharge her duties, but due to her health condition, she requested the Principal of the said college to get the date changed for her medical examination, which was accordingly, done. She, thereafter, submitted that she was requested to visit the college to sign documents for getting the benefit of revised pay scale granted by the UGC and that she visited and signed the papers. She then stated that on improvement of her health condition, she sent an application to the Principal of her college as well as the Governing Body to allow her to join in her duty. She thereafter, stated that she got a letter dated 04.03.2011 from the Principal of her college asking her to appear before the Medical Board of Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, on 15.03.2011, and that in pursuance to the said letter, she appeared before the Medical Board on the said date and Page No.# 4/11 underwent the medical examination. However, she stated that she did not receive any information regarding her health check-up, neither she was informed as to whether she could join in the college and as such, she sent an application again on 19.09.2011, requesting the authorities to let her join in the duty, but she stated she did not get any reply. She then stated that she had sent several applications seeking permission to join during the year 2012, 2013 and 2014. 6. She stated that after sending so many applications, she received a letter from the Principal on 05.07.2014, asking her to join the duty within 7 (seven) days after receipt of the letter. In response to the same, she visited the college, but she was not allowed to join in her duty, rather she was asked to regularize her leave period. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that she waited for several months for intimation letter regarding regularization of her leave period, but she did not receive any, and as such, she sent an application dated 23.11.2015, for not receiving any intimation letter and further apprising therein, that she had visited the college on 24.07.2014. She stated that she did not get any reply and she kept sending application many times. She, by not getting any reply, sent an application on 18.12.2017, to the Principal of the college requesting him to allow her to take voluntary retirement with pensionary benefits, after which she sent more applications. 8. She further stated that she received a letter from respondent No. 3, i.e., the Principal, wherein, it was stated that the Principal is not the competent authority to grant Page No.# 5/11 VRS and suggested her to approach the Director of Higher Education. She, responding to the said letter, wrote to the Principal that since she had always sent her request to the Principal she requested him to forward her application for consideration of VRS with pensionary benefits to the competent authority. Thereafter, on 30.03.2022, the petitioner is stated to have visited her college with another application, but the Principal refused to accept any of such application and requested her to approach the Director of Higher Education. Thereafter, she did not receive any reply and she sought for information, regarding the status of her post under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 15.10.2022, to which she did not receive any reply. However, on 03.12.2022, she received a letter from the Principal, wherein it was stated that all her documents were sent to the Director of Higher Education and that he cannot provide any details regarding the status of her job. She allegedly left with no other alternative, presented a representation before the Director of Higher Education on 15.02.2023, for regularization of her leave, payment of salary, till her superannuation and retirement benefits, but she did not get any reply from the said corner. Accordingly, she filed the instant petition before this Court. 9. The learned counsel, Mr H Rahman, appearing for the petitioner submits that from the date of appointment of the petitioner till 2005, the petitioner has been continuously working in the said college as a lecturer, but after 2005, the petitioner suffered from ailments, for which she submitted number of applications for leave, but the same were not exceeded to by the authority concerned. The learned counsel further stated that even if her absence from duty is considered as unauthorized from 2005 to 2011, but from Page No.# 6/11 2011, till the date of her superannuation, the petitioner is entitled for her salary as well as for her consequential pensionary benefits. He submitted that on 15.03.2011, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board of Assam Medical College of Dibrugarh, for her health check-up and from that day onwards, she requested the authorities to allow her to join in her duties, but the school authorities on one pretext or the other, had not allowed her to join. He further stated that the petitioner was never informed about the outcome of her health check-up by the Medical Board, neither she was informed by the school authorities. The learned counsel also submitted that from the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is known that during the medical check-up, the petitioner was found fit to join her duties, but the authorities did not allow her to join in the same. As such, the petitioner, vide letter dated 18.12.2017, had requested the Principal to allow her to take voluntary retirement which again was not allowed by the authorities concerned. The learned counsel, by referring to the affidavit filed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, placed that the said authority had written in the said affidavit in Paragraph-8 that petitioner is entitled for service benefit, w.e.f, 01.02.1986 to 25.01.2005, i.e., a total length of service of 18 years 11 months and 24 days. He submits that from 2005 to 2011, the petitioner has not prayed for her salary, but from 2011, till her retirement, she is entitled for her salary and retirement benefits, after she superannuated. To substantiate his argument, he placed 3 (three) decisions:- i) Nirmali Bhattacharjee -vs- State of Assam; reported in 2018 (3) GLT 747, by which this Court held that since the appellant was prevented from rendering her service, Page No.# 7/11 her non-rendering of service for a particular period was not her fault and that she is entitled for the salary and allowances for the said period. ii) District Project Co-ordinator -vs- Golam Nabi Amzad Hussain; reported in 1998 (1) GLT 544, by which this Court held that if evidence in proof of facts narrated in the pleading is submitted, the same should be taken account of. iii) Shobha Ram Raturi -vs- Haryana Bidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited; reported in (2016) 16 SCC 663, by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although the concept-‘No work, no pay’, is an established concept, but in cases, where the aggrieved party is not allowed to continue in service, the same will not have any application. 10. On the other hand, Mr D Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submits that the petitioner was found to be fit to resume her duty after she was examined by Medical Board, but the petitioner did not report for her duty, although she has made applications, but the same was not by coming to the college, but through post, which according to the learned counsel, did not show her serious efforts to join her duty. He submits that since 2005 onwards, the petitioner has been absent throughout. He also states that the petitioner did not specifically applied for regularization of her leave period. He also submitted that the Principal of the college had written to the Director of Higher Education that petitioner was found fit to resume her duties and the college was waiting for a direction from the Director of Higher Education. He, as such, submits that the question of deponent being deprived of the livelihood and legitimate rights does not Page No.# 8/11 arise, due to her unauthorized absence since 27.01.2005. Mr Gogoi has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airport Authority of India -vs- Shambhu Nath Das; reported in (2008) 11 SCC 498, by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated the concept of- ‘No Work, no pay’. 11. Mr D Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Director of Higher Education, submitted that the petitioner rendered her continuous service till 25.01.2005, but after 25.01.2005, till the date of her retirement, her service may be treated as –‘No work, no pay’. It was further stated that she may, however, be allowed her pensionary benefits for the service rendered for 18 years 11 months 24 days, i.e., from 01.02.1986 to 25.01.2005, as per Clause-VIII of Assam College Employees’ (Provincialized) Act, 2005. 12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have gone through the records. 13. As far as the services of the petitioner from 1986 to 2005 is concerned, there is no dispute that the same was continuous and the said fact has been acknowledged by the Director of Higher Education, as stated above. The issue is the petitioner’s entitlement after 2005. It is seen that after 2005, the petitioner made a number of applications for leave, but it is not seen that those applications were allowed. As such, the petitioner was considered to be absent from 2005 onwards and then in 2011, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board, more specifically, on 15.03.2011. After her examination, she Page No.# 9/11 was not apprised of the report of the medical board. It is, however, stated that report was sent to a different address, where the petitioner was not staying and that later, the address was changed and a report was again sent, but the petitioner submitted she did not get. Be that as it may, it is also the duty of the petitioner to approach the school authorities, not only to join her duty, but also to get the report of the medical board. Although she stated that she submitted a number of applications, the first after her medical check up, was on 19.09.2011, but it is seen that after six months, she made the application. Subsequently, she made applications, sent through post with the request to allow her to join duties, but after months altogether, and during this intervening period, she did not give any leave application with any supporting documents. It is stated that she thereafter, personally went to the college and resumed her duties, but then it was a vacation time, and she could not perform her duties, after the vacation period was over, she did not personally go to the college to join, but had sent letters for permitting her to join and that finally, on 05.07.2014, the Principal of the College informed her that she can join in her duties within 7 (seven) days after receipt of the said letter. But it is seen that the petitioner by letter dated 24.07.2014, agreed to join in her duty, i.e., much after 7 days’ period. The petitioner was, however, advised to first regularize the leave, since by then, the petitioner was on unauthorized leave for almost 10 (ten) years, and that, thereafter, neither her leave was regularized, nor she performed her functions. Thereafter, on 18.12.2017, the petitioner wrote to the Principal for allowing her to go on voluntary retirement, which again was not in the capacity of the Principal, and she was Page No.# 10/11 advised to approach the Director of Higher Education, more so, due to the fact that the petitioner had requested for her pensionary benefits as per the last revised pay commission report. Thereafter, many communications were made and the petitioner, in the meantime, had retired. 14. It is, as such, noticed that the petitioner’s leave period was never regularized. She although submitted few leave application along with the medical certificates, but the same were not allowed and she did not pursue the same and rather submitted subsequent leave applications, which was never granted to her. In view of the same, the leave period from 2005 to 2011, was never regularized and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any pay benefits during the said period. The main issue is after 2011, i.e., on 15.03.2011, when she appeared before the medical board for health check-up. Although the medical board returned the finding that she was fit to join her duty, she on the first hand, stated that she did not received the report and on the second, she never approached her school in time to join her duties. It was much after March, 2011, that she submitted an application to resume her duties and then after months altogether, she kept on making applications and one fine day, when she arrived in her school personally after a long gap she was advised to regularize her leave period, which she could not, in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, it is noticed that from 2011, she never resumed her duties. On one occasion, she joined in her duties, but then again, that was a vacation period, therefore, since 2011, rather since 2005, petitioner had never imparted any class in her college in her Department of Economics. Further, there was already a break in her Page No.# 11/11 service from 2005 to 2011, for a long period of 6 (six) years, which was again not regularized by the authorities concerned. As such, this Court deems it fit that the authorities in the Higher Education Department shall allow the petitioner, her pension and pensionary benefits only for the service rendered from 1986 till 2005, i.e., for a period of 18 years 11 months and 24 days, as per law, if not found ineligible, for any other reasons. 15. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant