Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 62 (GAU)

MARAMI BALA RABHA v. SHYAMLAL MEWARA, IAS

2014-01-20

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 WP(C) 3975 of 2004 decided by the learned Single Judge on 17.08.2005. 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 17.08.2005 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 3975 of 2004 reads as follows: “In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have claimed to be regularized as Assistant Teachers in LP schools under the State Government of Assam. By virtue of their earlier appointment on fixed pay basis and regular service for considerable period in Nalbari District, the petitioners have claimed to be being acknowledged and entitled for reinstatement and regularization against existing vacancies under the Department of Education, Government of Assam. All these writ petitions are being disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of Education, to consider the cases of the petitioners, if so presented by way of representations along with the certified copy of this order, copy of each of the writ petitions and other supporting documents within a period of 4 weeks from today. If necessary, the petitioners or their legal representative may be heard. The representation shall be decided within a period of two (2) months thereafter by a speaking order in accordance with the law.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt application 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 17.08.2005 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 17.08.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 3975 of 2004 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 are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 17.08.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 3975 of 2004 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.