Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court - Itanagar

Khoda Rana vs The State Of Ap And 4 Ors on 24 March, 2026

                                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC040004072026




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

                                Case No. : WP(C)/116/2026

         Khoda Rana
         Son of Shri Khoda Piji, a permanent resident of E Sector Itanagar, PO and PS
         Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

         VERSUS

         The State of AP and 4 Ors
         represented by the Commissioner, Department of Transport, Govt of Arunachal
         Pradesh, Itanagar.   2:The Commissioner
          Age: 0
          Occupation :
          Department of Transport
          Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar.

         3:The Secretary
         Age: 0
          Occupation :
          Department of Transport
          Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
          Itanagar.

         4:The Deputy Secretary
         Age: 0
          Occupation :
          Department of Transport
          Itanagar
         Arunachal Pradesh.

         5:The Director
         Age: 0
          Occupation :
          Department of Transport
          Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/3

             Naharlagun

Advocate for the Petitioner   : Kemo Lollen, Arun Yun,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),




                                   BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

                                            ORDER

24.03.2026 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order No. TPT(B)- 11023(14)/1/2024/339 dated 12.08.2025, issued by the Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh (respondent No. 2) with immediate effect.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that no subsistence allowance has been paid to him during the suspension period from 12.08.2025 till date, despite being entitled under FR 53(1) Rule.

4. It is submitted that due to non-payment of monthly salary and subsistence allowance, the petitioner and his family are facing severe financial hardship, which amounts to a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent authority to release the subsistence allowance as entitled to him.

Page No.# 3/3

6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in 3 (three) weeks.

7. Since R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, has entered appearance and accepted notice on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5, no formal notice is required to be issued to the said respondents. However, he shall be provided with the requisite extra copy of the petition during the course of the day.

8. Having heard the parties, the respondent authority is directed to release the subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 12.08.2025 till date, in accordance with FR 53(1) and other applicable rules.

9. List the matter after 3(three) weeks.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant