Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 182 (GAU)

DEBIRUZ ZAMAN v. V. RAJAGOPALAN

2014-02-13

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned for the petitioner and Mr. D. Baruah, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner of WP(C) 5210 of 2010 decided by the learned Single Judge on 14.06.2012. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The operative part of the order dated 14.06.2012 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 5210 of 2010 reads as follows: “14. As noticed above, the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 13.06.2005 considered the SFS Officers for promotion against the vacancies occurred in the years 2003 and 2004 separately, as for selection of SFS Officer for promotion pertaining to the year 2003, the Selection Committee did not meet in the year 2004. The petitioner was selected against the year 2003 and accordingly promoted. Rule 3(3)(ii) of the 1997 Rules requires assignment of the year of allotment in the manner provided therein after giving due weightage for the service rendered by the SFF Officer. As discussed above, proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1997 Rules stipulates that the Officers shall not be assigned a year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an Officer senior to him in that select list or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list. After the appointment of the petitioner the year of allotment was assigned as 1997. Two other SFS officers, namely, Mamat Kalita and Shri K.N. Barman, who were selected against the vacancies occurred in the year 2004, though initially was assigned the year of allotment 1997, the same, however, was antedated to 1996. After the appointment of the petitioner the year of allotment was assigned as 1997. Two other SFS officers, namely, Mamat Kalita and Shri K.N. Barman, who were selected against the vacancies occurred in the year 2004, though initially was assigned the year of allotment 1997, the same, however, was antedated to 1996. The petitioner having been appointed to IFS on the basis of his selection against the vacancy occurred in the year 2003, as against the aforesaid SFS Officers, who were selected against the vacancies of the year 2004, the respondents have to reconsider the case of the petitioner for reassignment of the year of allotment in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1997 Rules, as has been discussed above. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider assignment of the year of allotment to the petitioner, which shall be done within a period of 2(two) months from today.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt complains that despite petitioner serving a legal notice on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 14.06.2012 for its implementation by a further period of 6(six) months from to-day, as an outer limit provided no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained of the order impugned therein. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 14.06.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 5210 of 2010 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 6(six) months from the date of this order. In case if order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents and all other authorities responsible for ensuring compliance shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 14.06.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 5210 of 2010 to the respondents, i.e. the official concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. The respondents will also communicate the compliance report to the petitioner as soon as it is complied with within the period fixed by this Court. 8. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands disposed of. No cost.