Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 677 (GAU)

NUR KHURSHIDA AHMED v. R C JAIN

2014-06-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Deka, 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.5429 of 2004 decided by the learned Single Judge on 06.03.2014. 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 06.03.2014 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.5429 of 2004 reads as follows: “Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel referring to the affidavit in apposition filed by the respondent No. 3, submits that appointment of the petitioner was an irregular one and as per report of the one man committee headed by Shri S. Manoharan, IAS, her service was regularized w.e.f. 1.8.2000. He, however, fairly submits that petitioner would be entitled to receive salary with effect from the date of regularization of her service i.e. with effect from 1.8.2000. The above submission of the learned Standing Counsel is accepted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of above, the respondents are directed to release the arrear salary of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Santipur Girl's M.E. School, Guwahati w.e.f 1.8.2000 to 31.3.2005 after directing the salary paid for the 3(three) months of March, April and May, 2003. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 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 06.03.2013 for its implementation by a further period of 6(six) months from today, 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 06.03.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 5429 of 2004 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 06.03.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 5429 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.