Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 65 (GAU)

JIBA KANTA PHUKAN v. ALOK KUMAR

2014-01-20

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. G. G. Gogoi, 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) 7010 of 2004 decided by the learned Single Judge on 24.09.2004. 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 24.09.2004 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 7010 of 2004 reads as follows: “ Mr. Mamnnan, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that6 if, in fact, the petitioner has completed his training, according to the prevalent policy of the Department, he will be entitled to the regular scale of pay in terms of the appointment order w.e.f. the date of declaration of the result of the training. It has further been pointed out that in terms of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 14.08.2003 passed in WPC No.6270 of 2003 cases of candidates similarly situated like petitioner, have been directed to be considered by a Committee constituted thereby. Having regard to the submissions advanced as well as the materials on record this petition is, therefore, closed with a direction that the petitioner’s case would be considered in terms of the directions in the aforementioned judgment and order and in case he is found entitled to the pay scale, as claimed by him, appropriate orders should be passed redressing his grievance.” 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 24.09.2004 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 24.09.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 7010 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 24.09.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 7010 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.