Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 678 (GAU)

PRAKASH CH. KALITA v. SURESH NATH

2014-06-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. R. C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, 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.5456 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 07.01.2013. 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 07.01.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.5456 of 2012 reads as follows: “Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the University Authority has submitted that if any amount towards subsistence allowance is payable to the petitioner, the same shall definitely be paid having regard to the increments. It has also been submitted that the leave encashment benefit, if payable, shall be paid but the payment of gratuity would be made only after disposal of the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions advanced, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the subsistence allowance, if any, payable to the petitioner during the period of suspension, having regard to the revision of pay during the period of suspension. The said respondents shall also pay the leave encashment benefit, if any, payable to the petitioner. Such payment shall be made within 45(forty-five) days from today. Relating to the payment of gratuity, the University Authority shall consider payment of such amount as soon as the criminal proceeding is over. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated above. No costs.” 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. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated above. No costs.” 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 07.01.2013 for its implementation by a further period of 3(three) 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 07.01.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 5456 of 2012 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 07.01.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 5456 of 2012 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.