Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010173452024 2026:GAU-AS:7683 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4299/2024 HITESH CH. SARMA S/O- LATE RAMESH CH. SARMA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- JANIGOG, P.O. JANIGOG, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, KAMRUP(M), GUWAHATI-6. 2:ADDITIONAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION DISPUR KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. G C BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/19 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR For the Petitioner : Mr. G C Baruah For the Respondent : Ms. M Bhattacharjee Date on which Judgment is reserved : 10.02.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 29.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. G C Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 26.04.2024, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transformation & Development Department, imposing a penalty upon the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Page No.# 3/19 Rules, 1969, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding instituted against him. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition, is noticed as under. The petitioner, herein, had joined the services of the Transformation & Development Department as a Research Assistant under Evaluation and Monitoring Division at Dispur, Guwahati on 13.12.2018. The petitioner was, vide an order dated 07.04.2022, promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officer/Assistant Planning Officer and on his such promotion, was posted to the establishment of the District Commissioner, Dhubri against a vacant post. The petitioner on receipt of the said order of his promotion, approached the Departmental Authorities by way of submission of a representation dated 09.06.2022, highlighting therein, that he had only around 13 months service tenure left and accordingly, prayed that considering the ailments suffered by him, a review of his posting order be made and he be posted in any Division under the Transformation & Development Division of the Department. The said representation submitted by the petitioner had remained unconsidered and vide an order dated 29.06.2022, the petitioner was released from the post of Research Assistant held by him in the Evaluation and Monitoring Division, Transformation & Development Department, to enable him to join as Assistant Planning Officer in the establishment of the District Commissioner, Dhubri, in terms of his order of promotion dated 07.04.2022. Thereafter, vide a communication dated 22.09.2022, the petitioner was directed to hand over the official charge of the post of Research Assistant, held by him to one Diganta Barooah of the Division. In the said communication, it Page No.# 4/19 was highlighted that although, the petitioner was earlier directed to hand over the post held by him to one Diganta Barooah of the Evaluation and Monitoring Division, the petitioner was found to have not handed over the charge. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to hand over the official charge of the post held by him to said Diganta Barooah on or before 26.09.2022, without fail. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation dated 28.09.2022, before the Departmental Authorities, renewing his prayer for a review of his posting upon his promotion to the rank of Assistant Planning Officer. The petitioner projected in his said representation that on account of the ailments suffered by him, he was not in a position to move to Dhubri. The wife of the petitioner also had submitted a representation before the Departmental Minister on the same lines. The petitioner not having assumed the charge of the post to which he was posted on his promotion as Assistant Planning Officer, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, proceeded to issue a Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023 to the petitioner, instituting a departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner submitted his Show Cause Reply on 26.05.2023 and therein, highlighting the ailments suffered by him as well as the approaching date of his superannuation, the petitioner prayed that he be considered for posting on promotion as Assistant Planning Officer against a post situated within the city of Guwahati, so as to facilitate him to enjoy his promotional benefits. The said reply not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was directed in the matter. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report on 08.01.2024. The said report was forwarded to the petitioner by his Disciplinary Page No.# 5/19 Authority, vide a communication dated 11.01.2024. The petitioner submitted a representation against the said enquiry report on 29.01.2024. The petitioner, thereafter, retired from his services on 31.07.2023. As the petitioner had retired from his services, the disciplinary proceeding instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, was converted to a proceeding under the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, vide order dated 26.04.2024, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, a penalty of withholding half of the pension amount, admissible to the petitioner for a period of 1 (one) year, w.e.f. August, 2023. Further directions were issued as to the manner in which the salary drawn by the petitioner, w.e.f. July, 2022 till July, 2023 is to be so regulated. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that representations submitted by the petitioner for a reconsideration of his place of posting upon his promotion to the post of Assistant Planning Officer, were not disposed of on the date when the disciplinary proceedings was so initiated against the petitioner. 4.1 It is submitted that the said representations were rejected only by way of a communication dated 03.07.2023. It is submitted that the date of superannuation of the petitioner, being 31.07.2023 and also considering the fact that he was suffering from ailments, the petitioner was not in a position to move to Dhubri to assume the charge of his promotional post of Assistant Planning Officer. Page No.# 6/19 4.2 Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the enquiry report, has submitted that the Enquiry Officer had arrived at his findings in the said enquiry without there being any admissible evidence brought on record in the enquiry. He submits that no witnesses were examined in the matter and only on a perusal of the documents, including documents, which were not incorporated as listed documents in the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to draw his conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner were well established. 4.3 Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has further highlighted that the Enquiry Officer had for the purpose of concluding that the charges leveled against the petitioner to be established, also highlighted that the petitioner had admitted that he had not joined his new place of posting even after being promoted. 4.4 It is submitted that while the said conclusion was so drawn, the further submission of the petitioner that he had not joined his new place of posting on promotion, only on account of his health condition and that he had requested the authorities for a review of his posting order, was not factored in. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the manner in which the enquiry was so conducted and the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer, in the enquiry report, not being based on admissible evidences coming on record in the enquiry, the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer would mandate an interference from this Court. 4.5 Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 26.04.2024, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, being so based on a vitiated enquiry, the same would also mandate an interference from this Court. Page No.# 7/19 5. Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner on being promoted vide the order dated 07.04.2022, was granted 15 (fifteen) days time to join against the promotional post. She submits that the petitioner had not sought for any extension of joining period, rather, he had submitted representations for review of his place of posting on his promotion to the post of Assistant Planning Officer. She submits that the petitioner, admittedly, was released from the establishment of the Evaluation and Monitoring Division of the Department, vide an order dated 29.06.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner in not joining his promotional post, had violated the directions passed in the matter by the Government. She submits that the prayer made by the petitioner for a review of his posting on his promotion to the post of Assistant Planning Officer, was considered by the respondent authorities and it was found to be not feasible. 5.1 Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, submits that although, the petitioner was released from the Evaluation and Monitoring Division, vide order dated 29.06.2022, it was found that the petitioner was drawing his full salary, w.e.f. July, 2022 to October, 2022, without discharging any duties during the said period. It is submitted that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent during the said period. 5.2 Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that a misconduct being found to have been committed by the petitioner in not assuming the charge of his promotional post at Dhubri, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner proceeded to institute a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by way of issuance of a Show Cause Notice on 18.05.2023. Page No.# 8/19 5.3 By referring to the enquiry report available on record, Ms. Bhattacharjee, has submitted that during the enquiry, the petitioner had admitted to the allegations leveled against him and accordingly, there was no requirement for holding of a full-fledged enquiry in the matter. She submits that the petitioner during the enquiry had not established the contention raised by him that he was on account of the ailments suffered by him, not in a position to move to Dhubri to assume the charge of his promotional post. 5.4 Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, submits that the petitioner having retired from his services on 31.07.2023, the proceedings instituted against him under provisions of the Rules of 1964 was converted to one under the provisions of the Rules of 1969 and accordingly, a penalty of withholding half of the pension amount, admissible to the petitioner for a period of 1(one) year, w.e.f. August, 2023 came to be passed, along with further directions with regard to the manner in which the salary of the petitioner, w.e.f. July, 2022 is to be regulated. 5.5 Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submits that in view of the above position coming on record, the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner after being promoted to the post of Assistant Planning Officer, vide order dated 07.04.2022, was posted in such capacity in the establishment of the District Commissioner, Dhubri. The Page No.# 9/19 petitioner is found to have not assumed the charge of his promotional post during the period, the same was so permissible to be assumed. The petitioner had vide a representation dated 09.06.2022, approached the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transformation & Development Department, praying for a review of his posting order on his promotion by highlighting that on account of the medical ailments suffered by him, he was not in a position to leave Guwahati, which was also projected to be the medical opinion rendered by the Doctor attending upon him. As the petitioner had not proceeded to join against his promotional post, the respondent authorities, vide order dated 29.06.2022, released the petitioner from the establishment of the Evaluation and Monitoring Division of the Department. Although, the petitioner was so released vide order dated 29.06.2022, the petitioner had not proceeded to hand over the charge of the post held by him in the said Division. Accordingly, the said aspect of the matter coming to the notice of the respondent authorities, vide communication dated 22.09.2022, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of the post held by him to Diganta Barooah of the Division, on or before 26.09.2022. 8. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner and his wife had approached the respondent authorities as well as the Departmental Minister, praying for a review of his posting on his promotion to the post of Assistant Planning Officer. While the said representations were pending, a departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner, vide issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023. 9. The allegations/charges framed against the petitioner in the said Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023, being relevant, the same is extracted hereinbelow: Page No.# 10/19 “1. That while you were holding the post of. Research Asstt. in E&M Division, T&D Deptt. you were transferred & posted to the O/o the D.C., Dhubri on being promoted to the cadre of Asstt. Planning Officer vide Notification No.PDS.7/2022/12 dated 07/04/2022. 2. Subsequently, you were released from E&M Division, T&D Deptt. vide Order No.PD(ME)1/2015/169 dated 29/06/2022 to enable you to join as Asstt. Planning Officer in the O/o- DC, Dhubri, with immediate effect. 3. But surprisingly, you have failed to comply with the Govt. order dated 07/04/2022 and instead of joining in the place you were posted i.e. O/o the DC, Dhubri, you submitted a petition on 28/09/2022 to review the order dated 07/04/2022 and post you in another Division of T&D Deptt. (HQ). 4. Thereupon, vide letter dated 25/01/2023 DC, Dhubri intimated the T&D Deptt. that you have not joined in the O/o- DC, Dhubri and as such, you have been absent from duty unauthorizedly till date. You are therefore, not only charged with disobedience, negligence of official duty but also thereby violation of Rule 3 (iii) of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and gross indiscipline.” 10. A perusal of the said Show Cause Notice reveals that therein, it was alleged that the petitioner, although, in pursuance to his promotion to the cadre of Assistant Planning Officer, vide Notification dated 07.04.2022, was released from the Evaluation and Monitoring Division of the Department, vide an order dated 29.06.2022, he had failed to comply with the Government order and instead of joining his promotional post, he had submitted representations for review of the posting as ordered in his case on promotion, vide order dated 07.04.2022. 11. It was further alleged that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from Page No.# 11/19 duties after he was so released from the Evaluation and Monitoring Division of the Department. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged with disobedience, negligence of official duty and also violation of the provisions of Rules 3(iii) of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and gross indiscipline. 12. It is found that the petitioner had submitted his reply in the matter and thereafter, the same being not satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held. 13. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry report in the matter. The relevant portion of the enquiry report, is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference. “3. Enquiry: During the course of the Inquiry, I, along-with the Presenting Officer, read out the charges to the delinquent officer. I have perused the list of documents mentioned in the Charge-sheet. I have also recorded the statement of Shri Hitesh Ch Sarma (Annexure-1). 4. Findings: In the statement furnished by Shri Hitesh Ch Sarma on 13/10/2023, he has admitted that he had not joined in his new place of posting even after being promoted. He has stated that he could not join in his new place of posting due to health condition and that he had requested the Department to review his place of posting vide his letters dated 09/06/2022 and 28/09/2022. Both of these representations submitted by Shri Sarma were subsequently rejected by the Department vide letter No.E- 220815/1/209449/2023 dated 03/07/2023. He admitted that he was also drawing his salary as RA till October, 2022, though he was released from E&M Division on 29/06/2022. This amounts to dereliction in duty and insubordination on the part of the retired delinquent officer. In view of the above, the undersigned is of the opinion that the charges of disobedience, negligence of official duty, violation of Rule 3 (iii) of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and gross indiscipline levied upon Shri Sarma are well Page No.# 12/19 established.” 14. A perusal of the enquiry report would reveal that the procedure adopted in the said enquiry was to the effect that the Enquiry Officer, along with the Presenting Officer had read out the charges to the petitioner, herein, and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer had perused the lists of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet and recorded the statement of the petitioner. That is the only procedure seen to have been followed in the enquiry held. The documents which had found part of the lists of documents annexed to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023, is not found to have been exhibited in the enquiry through a departmental witness, although, in the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023, a list of witness with names of two witnesses, was enclosed. 15. On a perusal of the findings of the enquiry report, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer had recorded that the petitioner in his deposition made in the enquiry had admitted that he had not joined in his new place of posting even after being promoted. The Enquiry Officer further recorded that the petitioner had contended that he could not join in his new place of posting due to his health condition and that he had requested the department to review his place of posting vide the representations submitted by him on 09.06.2022 and 28.09.2022. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, recorded a finding to the effect that the said representations submitted by the petitioner, were rejected by the department, vide a communication dated 03.07.2023. The said communication dated 03.07.2023, is not part of the lists of documents, enclosed to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023, inasmuch as, the same was issued after the issuance of the said Show Cause Notice. 16. From the materials coming on record, it is not found as to who had Page No.# 13/19 produced the said communication dated 03.07.2023 in the enquiry. The said communication is not found to have come on record in the enquiry, by way of examination of any witness. The Enquiry Officer further recorded in his report that the petitioner had admitted that he was drawing his salaries till October, 2022, although, he was released from the Evaluation and Monitoring Division of the Department on 29.06.2022. Basing on the said conclusions, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges leveled against the petitioner stood well established. 17. This Court on a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer finds that the same was so drawn without there being any admissible evidence coming on record in the enquiry. Merely, by perusing the documents, which were listed in the lists of documents annexed to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023, it was not permissible for the Enquiry Officer to draw such conclusions. 18. This Court further finds that while the petitioner was held to have admitted that he had not joined in his new place of posting even after being promoted, the further submission made by the petitioner that he was so prevented only on account of his health condition, is not found to have been appreciated by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report. 19. Considering the manner in which the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry and this Court having found that only on a perusal of the listed documents, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to draw his conclusions, the right of cross- examination vested in the petitioner, which is otherwise, a vital right, is found to have been violated in the matter. Page No.# 14/19 20. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner had no opportunity to dispute the documents relied upon, inasmuch as, the same were not so exhibited in the enquiry through examination of witnesses. 21. It is a settled position of law that mere exhibition of a document would not also tantamount to an admission of its contents. The manner in which the documents were received in evidence in the enquiry, would reveal that the contents of the documents were not proved and accordingly, the exhibited documents cannot be elevated to the status of admissible evidence and the Enquiry Officer could not have placed reliance on the same for drawing his conclusion in the matter. 22. As noticed hereinabove, this Court has also found that a document, which had not formed part of the list of documents, enclosed to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023, i.e., the communication dated 03.07.2023, was also relied upon by the Enquiry Officer without, however, disclosing the manner in which the same was introduced in the enquiry. 23. Applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, to the facts of the present case, it is seen that in the present proceeding, admittedly, the documents were not exhibited through witnesses. The vital right of the petitioner in the matter having been so violated and he being denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, to dispute the contents of the documents so exhibited, it has to be held that evidences as received in the matter being so received in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be construed to be legally admissible evidence. The Enquiry Officer, having relied upon the said evidence for arriving at his finding in the matter, the Page No.# 15/19 findings so recorded in the enquiry report, against the petitioner, stands vitiated and it can also be safely held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer was so recorded basing on no evidence. 24. In view of the conclusions reached hereinabove, with regard to enquiry proceeding so initiated against the petitioner, more particularly, the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the manner in which evidences were received by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry so held, this Court holds that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer with regard to charges framed against the petitioner, being based on inadmissible evidence, the Enquiry Report would not mandate acceptance. 25. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court finds that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 08.01.2024 would mandate an interference from this Court. 26. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the impugned order dated 26.04.2024. The operative portion of the said order, being relevant, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “Whereas, after consideration of the Enquiry Report and other materials on record, the Government of Assam has found Shri Hitesh Chandra Sarma guilty of the charges famed against him in the Show Cause notice, Now, therefore, considering all aspects, the Governor of Assam is pleased to impose the following penalties upon Shri Hitesh Chandra Sarma under Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969: a) Half of the pension amount admissible to Shri Hitesh Chandra Sarma shall be withheld for one year with effect from the month of August, 2023, Page No.# 16/19 b) Salary already drawn by Shri Hitesh Chandra Sarma for the period of July, 2022 to October, 2022 shall be recovered from the pension. c) The period from July, 2022 till July, 2023, shall be treated as Extraordinary Leave without pay and allowances and will be counted only for pension purpose as per Rule 14(5) of Leave Rules, 1934 and FR 85(c). The Disciplinary Proceedings drawn against Shri Hitesh Chandra Sarma is hereby disposed of.” 27. A perusal of the said order dated 26.04.2024 would reveal that the Disciplinary Authority had on consideration of the enquiry report and other materials on record, proceeded to conclude that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him in the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023. 28. This Court has already concluded that the enquiry report dated 08.01.2024, for the reasons assigned, would mandate an interference. The Disciplinary Authority not having examined the enquiry report to ascertain as to whether the same was submitted after holding of an enquiry in strict compliance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, this Court finds that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner in pursuance to a enquiry, which is held to be vitiated, would not be maintainable and also would mandate an interference. 29. In view of the above discussion, the enquiry report dated 08.01.2024 and the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 stand set aside. 30. Having interfered with the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner, this Court would now consider the consequential reliefs that would be mandated to be granted to the petitioner. This Court notices that although, the petitioner Page No.# 17/19 was promoted vide order dated 07.04.2022, the said order of promotion, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, was never implemented. The petitioner during his service tenure is not found to have assumed the charge of his promotional post. Accordingly, the petitioner continued in his service as a Research Assistant. The petitioner is also found to have remained away from duties, after he was released from the post of Research Assistant held by him in the Evaluation and Monitoring Division of the Department, vide issuance of an order dated 29.06.2022. 31. This Court also notices that the petitioner was repeatedly approaching the respondent authorities, praying for a review of his posting in pursuance to his promotion to the post of Assistant Planning Officer, as effected vide order dated 07.04.2022. 32. The respondent authorities having not examined the reasons assigned by the petitioner, while submitting his representations for review of his posting on his promotion in pursuance to the order dated 07.04.2022, the Enquiry Officer also having not examined the said cause, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner having retired from his services on 31.07.2023, the enquiry held, being held by this Court to be vitiated, it would not be now permissible to hold the absence of the petitioner to be unauthorised absence, the petitioner must be deemed to have continued in his services as a Research Assistant. The petitioner admittedly was not discharging his duties, w.e.f. 29.06.2022, till the date of his superannuation, which had occasioned on 31.07.2023. Accordingly, the petitioner for the said period, would not be entitled to any salary. However, the petitioner is found to have drawn his salaries for the period w.e.f. July, 2022 to October, 2022. Page No.# 18/19 33. Considering the fact that the petitioner had superannuated from his services on 31.07.2023 and the representations submitted by him for a modification of the order of his place of posting being only found to have been rejected on 03.07.2023, this Court directs that the salaries drawn by the petitioner, w.e.f. July, 2022 to October, 2022, would not mandate to be recovered. The period, w.e.f. November, 2022 till 31.07.2023 would now be regularized by the respondents by notionally fixing the pay of the petitioner for the said period and also by granting to him his due annual increments. The pay of the petitioner accordingly being fixed in the above manner as of 31.07.2023, the respondent authorities are directed to process the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by the petitioner. 34. It is reiterated that this Court having interfered with the order dated 26.04.2024, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner therein, would not be permissible to be so imposed and also recovery of the salaries drawn by the petitioner for the period, w.e.f. July, 2022 to October, 2022, would also not be permissible to be implemented. 35. The respondent authorities are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner as of 31.07.2023, in the manner directed hereinabove, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent authorities shall process the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by the petitioner and forward the proposal in this connection to the office of the Accountant General, Assam, within a further period of 2 (two) months. The Accountant General, on receipt of the pension proposal in respect of the petitioner, herein, shall further process the same and authorise to the petitioner his due pension and pensionary benefits, w.e.f. 01.08.2023, within a Page No.# 19/19 period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a proposal in this connection from the Department. 36. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 37. The records produced by Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, be forthwith returned with due acknowledgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pratibha Baruah Digitally signed by Pratibha Baruah DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781004, l=Kamrup Metro, st=Assam, street=FLAT NO 204 GAUHATI HIGH COURT PRIVATE SECRETARY COMPLEX, Kharguli, Guwahati Assam India 781004, title=3293, 2.5.4.20=71a530be2ea040bbb22c00931aced04f 63e681f6cae3635c78d478f02266cde4, serialNumber=cb2a7c22627f9ea771f18f3983e02 b66130df764108b79dd12f3a3e40cd1d082, email=pratibhabaruah89@gmail.com, cn=Pratibha Baruah Date: 2026.06.08 17:03:35 +05'30'