Kushal Konwar Baruah vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1930 Gua

                                                                        Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010098222022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/3581/2022

            KUSHAL KONWAR BARUAH
            S/O.- LATE PRAFULLA BARUAH, R/O. VILL.- MAHALIPARA, P.O.-
            BUHINAGAR, P.S.- SIPAJHAR, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784147.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY (SECONDARY)
            GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6,
            ASSAM.

            2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
             GOVT. OF ASSAM
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI-19
            ASSAM.

            3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
             B.T.C.
             KOKRAJHAR.

            4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
             UDC
             UDALGURI

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS N SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
                                                                      Page No.# 2/2

                           BEFORE
      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                     ORDER

01.06.2022

Heard Ms. P Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SMT Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam.

The petitioner claims arrear salary from the year 1996 to 2004 in a circumstance, where by an order of 2004 his services were regularised with immediate effect. The petitioner to make submission firstly as to why an application should be admitted or notice should be issued after a delay of 18 years in making the claim of arrear salary, more so, in view of the Division Bench Judgment in Harendra Chandra Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura and Ors., reported in 2013(2)GLT 1094, wherein it has been held that in respect of arrear salary a limitation of three years should b applicable.

Further immediately after the order of regularization of 2004, the petitioner was aware that the salary would be prospective for 2004 and not of the earlier period and no effort was made by the petitioner to approach the Court at that stage.

List again.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant