Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 348 (GAU)

GANESH CHAKRABORTY v. A. C. BORDOLOI

2014-03-21

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. SAPRE, J. 1. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned for the petitioner and Ms. B. Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam 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 W.P.(C) No.2284 of 2010 decided by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.2011. 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 27.5.2011 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 2284 of 2010 reads as follows: “The official respondents in their counter affidavit have contended that since the respondent No.4 had joined the service on 29.6.1987 as against the petitioner's joining the service on 1.7.1987. Irrespective of the same date of the order of appointment which is 25.6.1987, the respondent No.4 would rank senior to the petitioner. Another ground urged that since in the appointment order as against the position of the petitioner at Sl. No. 3, the position of the respondent No.4 was at Sl. No.2 and thus according to merit also, the respondent No.4 was higher in position than the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, the same plea has been taken which is that in view of the position of the respondent No.4 at Sl. No.2 as against the petitioner's at Sl. No.3 in the order of appointment, the respondent No.4 would rank senior to the petitioner according to the merit in the select list. On being asked, the learned counsel for the parties could not highlight anything about the applicability of any rule to the instant case. Although, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Assam Ministerial Establishment (Service) Rule, 1977 but on perusal of the same, it appears that the same is meant for Grade-III post and not Grade-IV posts. According to Mr. Although, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Assam Ministerial Establishment (Service) Rule, 1977 but on perusal of the same, it appears that the same is meant for Grade-III post and not Grade-IV posts. According to Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, since the order of appointment for both the incumbents was one and the same and was issued on 25.6.87, with the joining time of 15 days, it was immaterial as to whether the petitioner could join on 1.7.87 as against the joining of the respondent No.4 on 29.6.87. He further submits that the order of appointment did not indicate placement of the incumbents according to their merit position in the select list. Thus, he submits that since the petitioner is older in age, he should have been assigned higher seniority position than that of the respondent No.4 and accordingly his case should have been considered for the post of Duftry. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the discussions made above. Upon such examination, if it is found that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.4, he may also be given promotion to the post of Duftry at par with the respondent No.4 without disturbing the respondent No.4. However, no adverse order shall be passed against the respondent No.4 without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Let the entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate not later then 31.8.2011. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of, without however, any order as to costs.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt complains that despite petitioners 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 27.05.2011 for its implementation by a further period of 3(three) 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 27.05.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 2284 of 2010 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 3(three) 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. The learned counsel for the respondents is requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 27.05.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 2284 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 petitioners 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.