Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4767/2022 of SARALA KAKATY BAISHYA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 8 February 2026
GAHC010138282022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4767/2022 SARALA KAKATY BAISHYA W/O DHIREN BAISHYA, VILL.- KAKAYA, P.O.- KAKAYA, P.S.- BELSOR, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP.BY THE SECRETARY
GAHC010138282022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4767/2022
SARALA KAKATY BAISHYA
W/O DHIREN BAISHYA,
VILL.- KAKAYA, P.O.- KAKAYA, P.S.- BELSOR, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPTT., GUWAHATI-06.
2:PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FORCE
ASSAM
ARANYA BHAWAN
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FOREST DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 6.
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NORTH KAMRUP DIVISION
RANGIA
ASSAM.
5:SALAMAT ALI
S/O SHANDO ALI
VILL. KAHARAPARA
P.O.- AMDOH
P.S.- SARTHEBARI
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR A CHETIA,MS S
SARMA HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, MR. S ROY (r-5)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
09.02.2026
Heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel Forest Department. The controversy in this writ petition was regarding the denial of consideration of promotion to the writ petitioner on the basis of her alleged application that she had undertaken not to be aggrieved, if she was not afforded promotion. The writ petition was filed on the basis that the petitioner had denied ever submitting any such letter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner denies the signatures on the aforesaid letter. On the last occasion, the matter was adjourned since the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a proposal that the petitioner perhaps would be satisfied to a great extent, if her promotion is considered immediately and henceforth from the disposal of this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that the respondent authorities would consider the petitioner for the immediate next promotion as and when such processes are taken up. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a submission that the respondents may be directed to consider her case for promotion from at least the date when she had preferred the writ petition. This Court observes that the respondents, being the role model employer would also look into that aspect of the matter and if found feasible, consider the petitioner for her promotions at least from the year 2022 onwards if necessary by giving notional benefits to the petitioner, which had been directed to her due to a letter which she totally denied subscribing to. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant