Page No.# 1/3 vs Debashis Puzari B
2025 Latest Caselaw 8898 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs Debashis Puzari B on 26 November, 2025

                                                                Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010085512023




                                                         undefined

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

                           Case No. : WA/248/2023

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.

         2: THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS)

         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI -6
         ASSAM.

         3: THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS)

         CHANDMARI
         GUWAHATI- 3
         ASSAM.

         4: THE CHIEF ENGINEER

          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS)

          CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI- 3
          ASSAM.

         5: THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER

          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

         DIBRUGARH RURAL ROAD DIVISION
                                                                         Page No.# 2/3

             DIBRUGARH- 786001
             ASSAM

            VERSUS

            DEBASHIS PUZARI B
            S/O SRI TARUN CHANDRA PUZARI R/O WEST MILAN NAGAR (K-LANE),
            P.O.C.R. BUILDING, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM - 786001.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : SR. GA, ASSAM,

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P SHARMA, MR. K N CHOUDHURY,K AHMED,MR. S P
SHARMA,K AHMED,MR P R SARMA




                                  BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

26.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

The appellant State has questioned a part of the impugned

judgment, alleging that once the administrative order of striking off

the period of absence from the duty rendered by the respondent, it

has wrongly been observed by the Bench that the respondent shall

not be construed to be a new entrant in service after the

impugned order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Disciplinary

Authority.

Prima-facie such exposition of dies-non is correct. All that

which cannot be claimed by the respondent is his subsistence Page No.# 3/3

allowance for the period of dies-non. However, because seniority

flows from the actual service rendered, the striking off the days

when the respondent did not render his service, shall definitely

affect his seniority but without disturbing the jural relationship of

master and servant between the employer and the respondent.

Since there is no indication at all in the impugned judgment

with respect to the seniority of the respondent and the appeal

preferred by the respondent qua his entitlements for the

subsistence allowance during the period of suspension against the

judgment has been dismissed, Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the

appellants, after some arguments, seeks permission to withdraw this

appeal and await for the time when such seniority dispute is ever

raised by the respondent.

Prayer is allowed.

The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as

aforesaid.

                             JUDGE                    CHIEF JUSTICE


Comparing Assistant