Lilima Begum vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1663 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Lilima Begum vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 24 February, 2026

Author: Nelson Sailo

Bench: Nelson Sailo

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010144132022




                                                           undefined

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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/5272/2022

         LILIMA BEGUM
         D/O. LT. SALIMUDDIN AHMED VILL. SOOTEA GHAHI GAON, P.O. SOOTEA,
         P.S. SOOTEA, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN-784175.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. ND SECY., EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT.,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

          ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI-19.

         3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

          MOIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI-

         4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL

          SONITPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE
          TEZPUR
          DIST. SONITPUR
          ASSAM.

         5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3

             GHY-06

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS M DAS,

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, FINANCE,SC, AG




                                            BEFORE
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
                                            O R D E R

24.02.2026

The case of the petitioner is that she has rendered 28 years of service on ad-hoc basis as an Assistant Teacher and that she should be given pension. The petitioner has taken the example of one Sri Dipen Barua and Dilip Gayan, who were also Assistant Teachers and serving on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner contends that the services of these two teachers, importantly services of Dipen Barua have been regularized by giving ex-post-facto approval vide order dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure- XVII) passed by the Director of Elementary Education. Specific statements have been made in paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 of the writ petition, but surprisingly the Department of Elementary Education has no comment to offer against paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 of the writ petition, which can be seen from paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit.

Ms. N. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that she has received additional verbal instructions, which is to the effect that the petitioner has not served for 20 years to claim pensionery benefits.

Such a stand is not available in the counter affidavit and further such Page No.# 3/3

an instruction being only verbal, the same cannot be accepted without any supporting documents.

However, as the learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department prays for some time, the respondents are given 10(ten) days time to file an additional affidavit to clarify the specific averments made in paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 in the writ petition. If such affidavit is not filed, the matter will be considered on the basis of materials available on record.

List the matter on 13.03.2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant