WP(C) 5301/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL Heard Mr. M.U.Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pathak , l earned counsel for the State respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by Smti. Golapjan Begum seekin g a writ in the nature of Mandamus so as to direct the respondents to pay arrear salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period 1.4.75 to 31.12.2000 am ounting to Rs. 7,46,825/-(Rupees Seven lacs forty six thousand eight hundred twe nty five) only. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that she was initially engaged as Assistant Teacher in Uttar Jalukbari L.P. School, Gauhati on honorary basis and despite serving more than 10 years, she was not regularized. Hence, the peti tioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being C.R. No. 2736 of 1 996. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.8.98. The relevant directions given in the said order are reproduced below :- In view of the judgment of this court in the case of Smti Kunj alata Gogoi and 11 ors (supra) as well as the order passed by the Joint Director of the Govt of Assam, Education Deptt. On 25th March’95 discussed above, I disp ose of this writ petition with a direction that the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Kamrup, Guwahati will treat that petitioner as a regular teacher of the aforesa id School with effect from Ist April, 1995 and within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified/true copy of this order from the petitioner , she shall be paid her salaries as such regular teacher. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Kamrup,Guwahati will also move the higher authorities for payment of hear arrear salaries and pay the same to the petitioner within 6 months from th e date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Other benefits regarding seniority and pension will be given to the petitioner as per the earlier judgmen ts of this court . ( Highlighting in mine). 4. After the aforesaid orders passed in C.R. No. 2736 of 1996 , th e Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools moved the higher authority for regul arization of the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 01.08.2005 issued under Memo No. DG/CR No. 2736/96/2000-01/7894-96. In this letter the Deputy Ins pector of Schools, Guwahati requested the Director of Elementary Education , Ass am to regularize the services of the petitioner from Ist April, 1975 as per the orders passed in C.R. No. 2736 of 1996. It was followed by another letter dated 25.8.2008 giving proposal for allotment of fund for payment of arrear salary fo r the period from 1.4.75 to 31.12.2000. This was processed on the basis of an application submitted by the present petitioner, Smti Golapjan Begum. It may be mentioned here that the copy of the order dated 24.08. 1998 has been officially communicated by the High Court Registry to the concerned authority only in the year 2008. 5. When the case was taken up for hearing on 2.3.2009, Mr. M.R. Pat hak, learned Standing counsel for the State respondents submited that in the or iginal judgment the benefit of regularization was given prospectively i.e from t he month of April, 1995 and not from the month of April, 1975. The learned Stan ding counsel for the respondents also submited that the present writ petition has been filed on the basis of a forged copy of the order and it was requested to verify the authenticity of the claim after perusing the original order. Hence , the records of C.R. No. 2736/96 were called for. 6. On 3.3.2009 the original order was placed before me. Having foun d that the direction for regularization was only prospective from April, 1995, Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to furnish the certified copy of the order dated 24.8.98, the basis of making request for ret rospective regularization and for arrear salary before the Government and also f or filing this writ petition. However, the learned counsel submitted that he was in possession of only a photocopy of the order and an authenticated xerox cop y of the same was supplied to the Court. In this photocopy the date of regulariz ation was shown to be Ist April, 1975. 7. Having noticed the discrepancy in the order of the photocopy, t he learned counsel for the petitioner was given time till to day to produce the original certified copy and the petitioner was also summoned in person. Today t he petitioner appeared in person and stated that the original certified copy of the order was submitted to the concerned department. At the same time, the peti tioner also stated that a copy of the order was also furnished to the learned c ounsel at the time of filing of the writ petition. While stating so, the petiti oner was found trembling and she took sufficient time to give reply whether the original certified copy or the xerox copy of the order was furnished to the lea rned counsel by her. After sometime the petitioner replied that the copy of the order was handed over to the lawyer by her husband and not by her. Be that as i t may, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not annex any copy of the ord er dated 24.8.98 passed in C.R. No. 2736/96 with the writ petitions. In my con sidered opinion the copy of the order dated 24.08.1998 was deliberately not ann exed with the Writ Petition. 8. Today I have meticulously compared the photocopy of the aforesai d order which was obtained by the petitioner on 29.12.98 with the original order . The records of the C.R. No. 2736 of 1996 were also made available to the peti tioner and her counsel for perusal. The petitioner and her counsel also affirm ed that in the original order the benefit of regularization was given w.e.f Ist April, 1995 and not from Ist April, 1975. 9. Apparently, from the photocopy of the order dated 24.8.98 furnis hed by the petitioner to this Court yesterday , it appears that the certified co py of the order was issued by way of manual typing. The figure ’7’ appears a t different places. It further appears to me that without tampering other parts of the order someone has definitely manipulated the relevant portion of the or der by way of erasing the originally typed ’9’ and replacing it with figure ’7’ so as to mean that the benefit of regularization was given from Ist April, 1975 . Hence, the writ petition is absolutely devoid of merit and no mandamus can be issued . Beside this, it is the settled principle of law that if any person is found to have approached the Court with soiled hands , the Court is entitled to refuse to grant any relief. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. Before parting with the record , I would like to take judicial notice of tampering and fabricating various judicial orders. A good number of in stances of forgery of orders passed by the High Court have also surfaced in the recent past. Apparently, the aforesaid tampering has been done with a definit e motive to make an illegal gain and dupe the Government for huge amount of Rs. 7, 46,825/-. Hence I hereby impose a sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty thousand) as cost for filing a writ petition on the basis of fabricated and forged documents. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of 4 weeks from today. 11. Registry is also dircted to place this order along with the rec ords of WP (C ) No. 5301 of 2004 as well as C.R. No. 2736 of 1996 before the Hon ’ble Chief Justice in his administrative side for taking any other proper actio n, if His Lordship so pleases. 12. The records of both the cases shall be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in a sealed cover.