Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 6 (GAU)

DINESH CH. SAIKIA v. LAMCHOI S. CHANG

2014-01-02

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M.Sapre, CJ Heard Mrs. Nirupama Saikia, learned counsel, Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel, 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 23.3.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.73 of 2012. 3. The operative part of the judgment and order rendered in the Writ Appeal No.73 of 2012, reads as follows: “Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are not inclined to interfere. In view of the categorical stand of the Council denying the appellants' assertion of selection preceding, their appointments as Lower Division Assistant in the institutions involved, we are not inclined to entertain their prayer for regularization of service. This is more so, as according to the Council their appointments had been against non sanctioned/non existent posts vesting no right in them to continue in service. Be that as it may, as the learned Single Judge on an analysis of the relevant facts had observed that the State respondents ought to do the needful vis-à-vis the writ appellants' claim for salary for the period they had worked, we consider it appropriate having regard to their long standing expectation to fix a timeframe for the purpose. In our estimate having regard to the number of writ appellants involved and the period of service as claimed by them, a time limit of 6(six) months would suffice. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that the scrutiny of the appellants' claim for salary arrear and current would indubitably depend on the findings of the facts bearing on their service profile and also in accordance with law crystallized as on date by the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court on the issues involved. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.” 4. Counsel for the petitioners, however, in this contempt petition complain that despite petitioners serving a copy of the order on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners. 5. Mr. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.” 4. Counsel for the petitioners, however, in this contempt petition complain that despite petitioners serving a copy of the order on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners. 5. Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam accept 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 petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondents, on advance copy we are inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 23.3.2012 for its implementation by a further period of 2(two) 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 23.3.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.73 of 2012 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 2(two) 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 stand 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 23.3.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.73 of 2012 to the respondents, i.e. the official concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. No costs.