Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 34 (GAU)

DHARMA KANTA MAHANTA v. L. S. CHANGSAN

2014-01-10

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT (A.M. Sapre, C.J.) Heard P. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.K.Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition has been 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 alleging willful and deliberate violation of judgment and order dated 24.09.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5085 of 2008. 3. The operative part of the judgment and order rendered in the Writ Petition (C) No.5085 of 2008, reads as follows: “In the face, a clear and categorical stand of the official respondents in the instant petition that the petitioners are not amongst the 717 Assistant Teachers whose services had been terminated in the year 1992, we are of the view that the instant petition ought to be disposed of with the following directions: (1) As claimed by the petitioners, they would produce before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam certified copies of the orders of the court, if any, pursuant to which they claim to have been appointed to the posts which they assert are holding since the year 1989 along with other documents, if any, attesting their participation in any selection contemplated by the Rules preceding their appointments. (2) The aforementioned State authority would scrutinize all relevant records including those produced by the petitioners as above and examine the tenability of their claim for salary from the month of August-2007 as claimed verifying inter alia, as to whether they are rendering their services against the posts claimed by them. (3) If on such verification, the appointments of the petitioners are found to be valid in law and if they are found to be actually in service against the posts claimed by them, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam would pass consequential and appropriate orders in connection with their salary. So, as to enable the aforementioned authority to embark upon this exercise and to complete the same with expedition, the petitioners would produce a certified copy of this order before him within a period of 2(two) weeks. The process thereafter be completed within a period of 6(six) weeks provided the petitioners extend their cooperation to the same. Ordered accordingly. No costs. “ 4. The process thereafter be completed within a period of 6(six) weeks provided the petitioners extend their cooperation to the same. Ordered accordingly. No costs. “ 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt petition complains that despite petitioners serving a copy of the order on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners. 5. Mr. K.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice on behalf of the respondents instead of sending notice through Court process and to avoid time. On our request they have accepted notice and addressed the Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy, we are inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 24.09.2010 for its implementation by a further period of 4(four) 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, judgment and order dated 24.09.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5085 of 2008 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 4(four) 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’s order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands disposed of. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents is requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original judgment and order dated 24.09.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5085 of 2008 to the respondents, i.e. the officials concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. No costs.