Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 388 (GAU)

MD. BABUL MIAH v. ARUN KUMAR

2014-04-01

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT 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) No.3898 of 2009 and decided by the learned Single Judge on 10.02.2010. 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 10.02.2010 rendered in the WP(C) No. 3898 of 2009 reads as follows: “Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record and also nature of relief as sought for and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. The concerned authority shall verify and examine as to whether the aforesaid circular dated 15.2.2006 is applicable to the case of the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get such revised/enhanced salary. Upon such consideration if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get, the same shall be made available to him. The petitioner shall furnish a certified copy of this order before the concerned authorities alongwith annexure appended thereto and the appropriate authority shall pass order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of. However there shall be no order as to costs.” 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 10.2.2010 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 10.2.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 3898 of 2009 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. The learned counsel for the respondents are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 10.2.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 3898 of 2009 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.