Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 423 (GAU)

MD. ABDUL AZIZ v. HEMANTA NARZARY

2014-04-09

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
Judgment : Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel 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) No.2617 of 2007 decided by the learned Single Judge on 20.2.2013. 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 20.2.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 2617 of 2007 reads as follows: “Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court the communication dated 24.3.90 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) showing that the similarly situated teachers of other Madrassas have been regularized with effect from 1.9.86, i.e. from the date of provincialisation of the respective Madrassas and the petitioner shall also be entitled to the same benefit of his regularization of service with effect from 1.9.86 in view of the said communication. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that since the services of some other similarly situated Arabic Language Teachers with that of the petitioner, have been regularized with effect from 1.9.86, the petitioner is also entitled to be regularized with effect from the said date and accordingly, I direct the concerned authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service with effect from 1.9.86 in strict compliance with the provisions of law laid down for such regularization of service and pass necessary orders. Necessary compliance of this order shall be completed within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order.” Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that present petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the direction passed by this Court in C.R. No.1185/1995(Maulavi Hafizuddin Choudhury vs. State of Assam & ors.) dated 28.5.2001. On such consideration, if it is found that the petitioner is similarly situated with the aforesaid writ petitioner in C.R. No.1185/1995 and is entitled to such benefits of regularization of service from the date of provincialisation, the same benefits may be afforded to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. With the above observation and direction, the present petition is disposed of.” 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 20.2.2013 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 20.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2617 of 2007 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 20.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2617 of 2007 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.