Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/92/2026 of Matin Yaying Vs The State of AP and 3 Ors on 11 May 2026
GAHC040003372026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/92/2026 Matin Yaying Son of Hangung Yaying, resident of Boju Village, PO Payum, PS Kaying, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors
GAHC040003372026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/92/2026
Matin Yaying Son of Hangung Yaying, resident of Boju Village, PO Payum, PS
Kaying, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 3 Ors
through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
2:The Chief Secretary
Age: 0
Occupation :
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
3:The Secretary (Horticulture)
Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Horticulture
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
4:The Director (Horticulture)
Age: 0
Occupation :
Department of Horticulture
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar
Advocate for the Petitioner : Dicky Panging, Minzar Lollen,Mitin Boko,Tenzin Tsowang,Dadi Bote Pada,Omor Panggam,Chatung Tajo,Doge Lona,Marge Doji,Daina Tamuk Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (Horticulture),Tsering Gyatso
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 12.05.2026
Heard Ms. Daina Tamuk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Pubi Pangu, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, and Mr. Tsering Gyatso, learned standing counsel, Horticulture Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
2. The petitioner, who was serving as Horticulture Development Officer, Pakke Kesang District, was placed under deemed suspension by order dated 04.01.2023 issued by the respondent No.3, in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rule, 1965. Thereafter, by order dated 02.03.2023, his service was terminated by the Secretary, Horticulture Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on account of his arrest in connection with SIC (VIG) PS C/No.12/2022 U/S 120 (B)/406/409/420, IPC R/W Sec.7/8/13(2) P.C. Act,1988.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner challenged the termination order before this Court in WP(C) No.182(AP)/2023 amongst other on the ground that the termination order was stigmatic in nature and this Court, by order dated 06.04.2023, stayed the operation of the termination order. Consequently, the petitioner continued to remain under “deemed suspension”.
4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that although he has remained under suspension since his detention on 30.12.2022, no subsistence allowance has been paid to him till date. Accordingly, by filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for release of subsistence allowance in terms of Fundamental Rule 53 and other applicable rules.
5. Learned standing counsel for the Horticulture Department submits that the Department is ready to process and release the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner. However, certain documents are required from the petitioner for processing the claim.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no communication specifying the required documents has yet been issued by the Department and, therefore, she prays that an appropriate direction may be issued in that regard.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondent No.3, namely, the Secretary, Horticulture Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, shall issue a communication to the petitioner within a period of 2(two) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order specifying the documents required for processing the petitioner’s claim for subsistence allowance.
(ii) Upon receipt of such communication, the petitioner shall furnish the required documents before the concerned authority within a period of 1(one) week thereafter.
(iii) On receipt of the required documents, the respondent authorities shall examine the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law and release the admissible subsistence allowance to the petitioner within a period of 30(thirty) days thereafter.
8. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant