Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 680 (GAU)

BIROOP KR. GOGOI v. K. K. DEWIVEDI

2014-06-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. 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.3911 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 01.03.2013. 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 01.03.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 3911 of 2012 reads as follows: “Considering the grievance expressed by the petitioner and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner for regularization, this writ petition is disposed of by directing Respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of fixed monthly wages in terms of the Government decision dated 25.1.2012 and pass appropriate order(s) thereafter within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner still remains aggrieved, it will be open to him to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.” 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 01.03.2013 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 01.03.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 3911 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 other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 01.03.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 3911 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 01.03.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 3911 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.