Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 99 (GAU)

MD. RUBUL AHMED v. DILIP BARUA

2014-01-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayanta Chutia, learned counsel appearing 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) 3553 of 2009 decided by the learned Single Judge on 16.05.2011. 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 16.05.2011 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 3553 of 2009 reads as follows: “The claim of the petitioner involved in the instant case is for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father Hasmot Ali on 16.8.2006, while in service. According to the petitioner, his late father Hasmot Ali died in harness while was serving as Driver in the office of the Respondent No.5. Now, the claim of the petitioner is to consider his case as per the prevalent scheme within the prescribed quota for appointment on compassionate ground. Necessary parameters and yardsticks, required to be followed in the matter of compassionate appointment have been laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam & Ors reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 followed by Faziron Nessa v. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of providing that the respondents may examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines laid down in the said two decisions and as per the scheme for compassionate appointment. Before considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents may verify as to whether there is any other claimant in the family of the petitioner. Before considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents may verify as to whether there is any other claimant in the family of the petitioner. This particular observation is made in view of the fact that in another writ petition being WP(C) No.3450/2009, although the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the late father of the petitioner had left behind his only wife, son (the petitioner) and one daughter, but as per the disclosure made in the affidavit-in-opposition, the deceased left behind two wives, four daughters and the son (the petitioner).” 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 16.5.2011 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 16.5.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 3553 of 2009 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 16.5.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 3553 of 2009 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.