Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 53-57]Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 53Boby Das v. Sri Kantiram Das 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 54Ms. Lalhriatpuii & Ors. v. The Gauhati High Court & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 55Nizara Thakur v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 56Sri Sajal Kamal...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 53-57]
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 53
Boby Das v. Sri Kantiram Das 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 54
Ms. Lalhriatpuii & Ors. v. The Gauhati High Court & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 55
Nizara Thakur v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 56
Sri Sajal Kamal Das v. The State of Assam and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 57
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Non-Renewal Of Contract Not Retrenchment: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Reinstatement Of Workman
Case Name: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 53
The Gauhati High Court, while setting aside an award directing reinstatement of a workman, has held that termination of service on account of non-renewal of a contractual engagement would not fall within the definition of “retrenchment” under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
While dealing with Section 2(oo) of the Act, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, noted, “Sub Section (bb) would clarify that it does not include termination as a result of non-renewal.”
Major Son Pursuing Studies Not Entitled To Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Gauhati High Court
Case Name: Smti. Boby Das v. Sri Kantiram Das
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 54
The Gauhati High Court has held that maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC cannot be granted to a son who has attained the age of majority, merely on the ground that he is pursuing his studies, as the statute itself restricts such entitlement till majority, except in cases covered by clause (c).
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, pressing over the case, observed, “From the above clause (b) of Section 125(1) CrPC, it is abundantly clear that the statute has curtailed the period of maintenance to the child till he or she attains majority, whereas clause (c) thereof stipulates that such maintenance can be granted, even after attainment of majority when the child, not being a married daughter, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain itself.”
Case Title: Ms. Lalhriatpuii & Ors. v. The Gauhati High Court & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 55
The Gauhati High Court has quashed a notification which clubbed a newly created post in Grade-I of the Mizoram Judicial Service with the ongoing recruitment process initiated earlier, noting that the newly created post would fall within category of a “future” vacancy and not an “existing” or “anticipated” vacancy.
The court referred to Supreme Court's decision in All India Judges Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India (2025) wherein quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion as District Judges from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was directed to be increased from 10% to 25%.
Case Name: Nizara Thakur v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 56
The Gauhati High Court has held that pension and family pension under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 extend to employees who had retired or died prior to its commencement, and that denying such benefit on the ground of “retrospective” applicability is “an absurd proposition.”
Justice Rajesh Mazumdar, presiding over the case, observed, “There is no quarrel that the Act of 2005 itself provides for the grant of pension in respect of “employees” who had retired before the Act of 2005 came into force, and it also provides for family pension to the family of those “employees” who had expired before the Act of 2005 came into force. The issue of “retrospective” applicability of the Act of 2005, as found in the letter dated 03.03.2023, is an absurd proposition, since a reasoned perusal of the provisions of section 8 of the Act of 2005 would reveal that the facility of pension and/or family pension would apply to “employees” who had retired or expired prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2005, provided the Government share of CPF benefit received by such “employee” were refunded within the time frame given by the Act of 2005 itself.”
Case Title: Sri Sajal Kamal Das v. The State of Assam and Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 57
The Gauhati High Court held that where the issue of award of marks in a recruitment process had already been raised in an earlier writ proceeding but the party had settled for remand to the executive authority on a limited issue, the subsequent challenge to the marks would be barred by constructive res judicata.
Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “…constructive res judicata … is a legal fiction embodied in Explanation 4 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which expands the traditional doctrine of res judicata. Ordinarily, res judicata bars the issues that were actually raised and decided in an earlier proceeding. Constructive res judicata goes further and it bars the issues that ought to have been raised, but were not.”