Dismissed

Madhu Deka and 11 Ors. v. Amlan Barua and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2020Cont.Cas(C)/389/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Government for violating an order to revive defunct agricultural farming corporations and pay dues. The Court accepted the Government's apology and affidavit showing substantial compliance, arrears exceeding dues, and noted employees were non-functional, dismissing the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are not proceeded against under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971; the case is dismissed.

Madhu Deka and 11 Ors. Vs Amlan Barua and 2 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010114082016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C) 389/2016

¶5

1:MADHU DEKA and 11 ORS

¶6

S/O LT. TANU DEKA, TELIAGAON VILLAGE, P.O. ITACHALI, P.S. ITACHI, NAGAON, PIN-782003

¶7

2: MATI RAM BORAH

¶8

S/O LT. BIHU RAM BORAH TETELISARA P.O. TETELISARA P.S. KAMPUR NAGAON DISTRICT

¶9

3: MINATI SAIKIA D/O LT. NARESWAR SAIKIA VILL. PURBAJYATI NIGAM P.O. POLISUMONI P.S. GOHPUR DIST- SONITPUR PIN-784178

¶10

4: PREMADHAR SAIKIA S/O LT. PUNI KANTA SAIKIA KARAIATI GAON P.O. BOKAKHAT P.S. BOKAKHAT GOLAGHAT PIN-785612

¶11

5: KHAGEN GOHAIN S/O LT. DURGA NATH GOHAIN RAGHUGURI P.S. SIBSAGAR P.O. BHADHARA SIBASAGAR

¶12

Page No.# 2/9

¶13

PIN-785640

¶14

6: BHADUA KUTUM S/O LT. BUDHESOR KUTUN PANBARI GAON P.O. BARJURI P.S. BUKA GOLAGHAT PIN-785612

¶15

7: AKAN GOGOI S/O LT. GUNESWAR GOGOI BHADHARA NIGAM VILLAGE P.O. BHADHARA P.S. and DIST- SIBASAGAR PIN-785640

¶16

8: MEGHA CHATIA S/O LT. RANESWAR CHATIA CHEREKAPAR VILLAGE P.O. CHEREKAPAR P.S. and DIST- SIBASAGAR PIN-785701

¶17

9: PRAHLAD CHANDRA GOGOI S/O LT. MANURATH GOGOI NATU BHARALI BARI VILLAGE P.O. ERAMESHNO P.S. KHOWANG DIBRUGARH PIN-785676

¶18

10: JAGA NATH DUTTA S/O BHAKAT RAM DUTTA PUBERUM NIGAM VILLAGE P.O. PUBERUM NIGAM P.S. KHOWANG DIBRUGARH DIST- 785676

¶19

11: DINESH ROY S/O LT. DHONORAM ROY BARURITARA VILLAGE P.O. CHAPAR P.S. CHAPAR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM

¶20

Page No.# 3/9

¶21

12: KAMINI ROY S/O SANATAN RAY VILL. NEDANI P.O. BAHALPUR P.S. CHAPAR DHUBRI DISTRICT ASSAM PIN-783376 ASSA VERSUS

¶22

1:AMLAN BARUA and 2 ORS SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶23

2:MR. IMADULL HAQUE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶24

3:DR. KABINDRA BORKAKATI DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM KHANAPARA GHY-2

¶25

Counsel for petitioners : Mr. R Goswami

¶26

Counsel for respondents : Mr. TC Chutia,

¶27

Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam

¶28

BEFORE

¶29

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶30

11.02.2020

¶31

(Ajai Lamba, C.J.)

¶32

The petitioners have approached this Court under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 with the plea that the dues and arrears of salary as directed vide decision dated 27.1.2014 are not being released, hence the respondents be proceeded against under the Act of 1971. The order reads as under:

¶33

Page No.# 4/9

¶34

“ Heard Sri M Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri KN Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate-General, Assam.

¶35

The above bunch of cases, some of which are writ appeals have been filed against the order of the learned single-Judge directing absorption of the respondents into the service and payment of both current and arrears of salaries. The contempt petitions are filed for violation of the order of the learned single-Judge.

¶36

In these cases the respondents are all working in different agricultural farming corporations. The said corporations were in the red for some time and they were closed.

¶37

Respondents had filed a writ petition ~ WP(C) 3470/2004. The learned single-Judge in para 25 of his judgment-and-order in the said writ petition has made the following observations:

¶38

“Before parting with the case records, I feel it to be my duty to remind the Govt. about its duty and obligation for the welfare of the employees of the Corporation, number of which according to the report submitted by the aforesaid one man committee is only 15 to 20. The said report has clearly indicated the sufferings of the employees of the Corporation. The matter requires humane approach. As per the report, a few of the employees have already died in distress, one got mad and others are suffering physically and mentally for utter distress of their families in terms of food, child education etc. The report clearly indicates that the Govt. cannot ignore their plight and accordingly recommended for accommodating the remaining staff (15 to 20) in the Agriculture Department as was d one on earlier occasions. It is in this regard, a humane approach to the matter as emphasized by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Kaplla Hingorani(supra) is called for. If need be, some of the luxuries provided to the persons at the helm of affairs which needless to say are unnecessary and a poor State like Assam cannot

¶39

Page No.# 5/9

¶40

afford to be dispensed with. After all those luxuries cannot be at the cost of starvation and death of the employees of the Corporation.

¶41

Some of the respondents who are affected by the closure had filed WP(C) 4502/2006 and other batch of cases. In the said writ petition, this Court has allowed those writ petitions on similar lines of the order in WP(C) 3470/2004.

¶42

The Director of Agriculture has written a letter (dated 24.1.2014) to the Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, the contents of which are as follows :

¶43

“With reference to the subject cited above, I have to inform you that as per Govt. sanction order No. AGA.430/2004/Pt.I/664, dtd. 16/07/2013 part payment for an amount of Rs 50(L) has already been released to the employees of Agril. Farming Corporations(AGCs).

¶44

Moreover, regarding revival of AFCs in the state a Detail Project Report (DPR) prepared by AAU, Jorhat has been sent to Govt. which is under process at Govt. level. T

¶45

This is for your information and necessary action”.

¶46

The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the government is seized of the matter and the process for working out a revival plan of the corporations is on and that a substantial amount of compensation to the tune of Rs 50 lakh has already been paid and the balance amount would be paid in due course and the revival of the farming corporations would be done at the earliest and the respondents would be taken back to duty.

¶47

Keeping in view the submissions made at the bar and the facts and materials on record, it is directed that the respondent government shall revive the agricultural farming corporations within six months and pay both current and arrear salaries within the six months. Accordingly the writ appeals, contempt petitions and t he miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

¶48

Page No.# 6/9

¶49

Respondents are, however, at liberty to revive the contempt petitions if the order is not complied within the time-frame fixed.”

¶50

In deference to our order dated 6.2.2020, affidavit of Mrs. Roopjyoti Saharia serving as Secretary, Government of Assam, Agriculture Department, Dispur, Guwahati sworn on 10.2.2020 has been filed. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the affidavit need exact reference, therefore are extracted hereinbelow;

¶51

“3. That in the contempt petition the petitioners have arrayed Sri Amlan Baruah, the then Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Agricultural Department as Respondent No.1. Sri Baruah during his tenure had filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the contempt petition on 29.07.2017. Sri Baruah has retired from service on 31.12.2018. Thereafter the petitioners have not impleaded the present Secretary in the Contempt petition as party respondent.

¶52

That the deponent begs to state that while dealing with the matter communications received from the learned Govt. Advocate since 05.09.2019 were duly processed in file. This was brought to the notice of Principal Secretary Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Department and with his approval the Director of Agriculture was requested to furnish the requisite information vide departmental letter dated 04.10.2019. Another communication dated 06.11.2019 was received from the Govt. Advocate along with a copy of an Affidavit filed by the petitioners for necessary instruction from the department which was processed in file and on 03.12.2019 the Director of Agriculture, Assam was directed to submit the reply immediately on the affidavit. Thereafter, a letter dated 09.01.2020 was received from the Govt. Advocate seeking instruction and accordingly the same was processed in the file with a direction as a reminder vide letter dated 21.01.2020 to the Director of Agriculture, Assam to submit reply on the affidavit urgently. However, in the mean time the Director of Agriculture, Assam has submitted para wise reply on the affidavit filed by the petitioners showing details of the payment made to the petitioners so far vide his letter dated 18.01.2020 which was

¶53

Page No.# 7/9

¶54

received by us on 20.01.2020. Accordingly, a separate affidavit has already been filed on the basis of the reply submitted by the Director of Agriculture, Assam by the deponent on 10.02.2020.

¶55

That the deponent begs to state that the instruction sent by the Director of Agriculture, Assam vide this letter dated 18.01.2020 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Department, the copy of which was to be sent to the Govt. Advocate dealing with this matter, but inadvertently the copy was sent to Ms. Rashmi Bora, Advocate Standing Council Agriculture Department by the office of the Director for which the Govt. Advocate could not place the instruction before this Hon’ble Court on 06.02.2020.

¶56

That the deponent begs to state that on receipt of para wise reply from the Director of Agriculture, Assam, the deponent on 30.01.2020 has placed the matter with a note for approval of the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department. The Principal Secretary has approved the file on 01.02.2020. During that period the department obtained information from the Personnel Department regarding the date of retirement of Sri Amlan Baruah the then Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Department, Respondent No.1 to the contempt petition. Thereafter, the para wise comment received from the Director of Agriculture, Assam was forwarded to the Govt. Advocate by letter dated 06.02.2020 which was received by the Govt. Advocate on 07.02.2020 by evening.”

¶57

Mrs. Saharia has appeared in the Court in deference to our order and has tendered unconditional apology saying that there was no intention to violate directions of this Court. The affidavit was in preparation, however, got delayed by one day.

¶58

We accept the apology.

¶59

So far as facts and circumstances of the case are concerned, Mrs. Saharia has referred to above extracted portion of the affidavit to contend that Rs.4,47,29,000/- has already been paid. The details of payment have been reflected in Annexure-1. It has been stated that some

¶60

Page No.# 8/9

¶61

relatively small amount remains to be paid.

¶62

We have referred to contents of Annexure-1. We find that out of 24 persons in whose context the above extracted order would be relevant, 5 have already died. 11 of the employees retired. Services of two employees have been regularized.

¶63

7 persons remain in whose context it has been pleaded that their salary dues and arrears have not been released.

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that the said 7 persons have been working continuously, yet are not being paid.

¶65

Mrs. Saharia has clarified that farming corporation has long been closed. There is no place to work. In such circumstances, the statement given on behalf of the petitioners is false.

¶66

Faced with the factual situation, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that 7 of the employees in whose context the rights are being asserted go to the office and make themselves available for work, however, have not been assigned any work. It has been admitted that the corporations are not functional.

¶67

Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that more than Rs.4,47,00,000/- has been disbursed amongst the employees. It is further not in dispute that the petitioners have not been working. Surely a corporation that has been rendered defunct and has been closed would not offer opportunity to work. In such circumstances, it has become evident that a large number of employees have taken money on the pretext of their arrears and dues in the past under the orders of this Court.

¶68

While exercising jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we are of the considered view that we do not trace any intentional violation of orders passed by this Court. Substantial compliance has already been made.

¶69

We have also taken the equitable view of the matter into consideration viz. although the claimants have not been working, yet, have been taking money in large amounts.

¶70

Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to proceed any further in this matter.

¶71

Page No.# 9/9

¶72

13. The case is dismissed.

¶73

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶74

Comparing Assistant

Madhu Deka and 11 Ors. v. Amlan Barua and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Deka and 11 Ors. v. Amlan Barua and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tangir Tamut Vs Govind Jaswal

Samsul Haque Islam Vs Alok Kumar, IAS and 4 Ors.

Pratima Sengupta Vs Siddharth Singh, I.A.S. and 3 Ors.

Lalit Ch. Bhakat and 3 Ors. Vs Nazrul Islam and 4 Ors.

Shainur Begum @ Shainur Bewa Vs Nagendra Karmokar

Kanak Chandra Patowary Vs Sanjeev Bhuyan

Rajib Das and 4 Ors. Vs Rathindra Bhuyan and 2 Ors.

Purnendu Sekhar Debnath Vs Preetom Saikia, IAS and Anr.

Chhaya Roy Vs Axis Bank Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Sumi Kerai and 14 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Khanish Kumar Bhattacharjee and Anr. Vs M/S Landmark Establishmentsp Ltd. and Ors.

Anjali Ray and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ms. Mofida Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ms. Radina Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.