✦ Gauhati High Court

Judgment · High Court

MADAN B LOKUR, A POTSANGBAM

Judgment

It is agreed by learned counsel for the parties (and it is so ordered) t hat the 2nd and last sentence of paragraph 22 of the order contains a typographi cal error and the sentence should read as follows :- (cid:28)A department or part of the department and the indication shows that if in such departments regular vacations are allowed then there is no escape from holding that SR 114 is included within itself a medical college and the teaching staff i n accordance with the instructions/circulars of the government would be entitled to the leave encashment not beyond 80 days. (cid:29)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments