Allowed

Uddipta Kashyap v. Gitimoni Phukan and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Aug 2021Cont.Cas(C)/410/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition regarding the violation of an earlier order on pension benefits, the court held that while the primary pension direction was complied with, the earlier order did not clearly mandate payment of arrear pay and allowances, requiring the petitioner to file a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation before Director of Higher Education regarding arrear pay and allowances; requirement of reasoned order within one month; contempt petition closed.

Uddipta Kashyap Vs Gitimoni Phukan and 2 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010125072020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/410/2020

¶5

UDDIPTA KASHYAP

¶6

S/O- LATE ANANDA RAM BORA, HOUSE NO. 15, PUB-SARANIA, SANKARDEV PATH, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-03, P.O. SILPUKHURI, DIST.KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

GITIMONI PHUKAN AND 2 ORS. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI- 781019.

¶9

2:DR. ADISON ALI PRINCIPAL LALIT CHANDRA BHARALI COLLEGE MALIGAON GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781011. 3:ABDUL RAUF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON KRISHNAPUR BELTOLA TINIALI GUWAHATI- 781029

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D A KAIYUM

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K GOGOI

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

04.08.2021

¶16

Heard Mr. M Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent contemnor No.1, Mr. SK Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent contemnor No. 2 and Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent contemnor No.3.

¶17

This contempt petition is instituted for wilful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court dated 22.08.2019 in WP(C) No.4779 of 2019. By the said order, the following directions were issued:-

¶18

“6. Considering the nature of the case, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of with the following observations and directions:

¶19

(I) Though the petitioner in the meantime has attained majority, he would be entitled to family pension during the period when he was a minor in addition to the family pension which would have been entitled to the mother of the petitioner.

¶20

(II) The pensionary benefits which the petitioner’s father would have been entitled after his retirement from his service is to be given to the petitioner.

¶21

(III) Apparently, since all the relevant records are in the custody of the Principal of the LCB College i.e. the respondent no.5, the respondent no.5 herein shall do the needful by forwarding the relevant documents pertaining to the service of the petitioner’s father to the respondent no. 2, the Director of Higher Education & the respondent no.6 Principal Accountant General (A&E), so that the petitioner can avail the pensionary and other due retiral benefits mentioned above.”

¶22

Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent contemnor No.1 has produced an order No.PR-2/EDN/12/078955/2021/529-31 dated 07.07.2021, by which a pension is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner Uddipta Kashyap for an amount of Rs.17,440/-, Rs.10,470/- and Rs.25,970/- p.m.

¶23

The order dated 07.07.2021 of the Senior Accounts Officer in the Office of

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

the Principal Accountant General, A&E, Assam shows that there is sufficient compliance of the direction in paragraph No.6 of the order dated 22.08.2019 in WP(C) No.4779/2019.

¶26

Mr. M Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph-7 of the said order dated 22.08.2019 to make a claim that there is also a direction for payment of arrear pay and allowances in favour of the father of the petitioner as per an order dated 10.01.2019.

¶27

We have gone through paragraph-7 of the order dated 22.08.2019, but is of the view that there is no clear direction of this Court for payment of any such arrear pay and allowances. In paragraph-7 it is merely provided that while passing the necessary order for payment of family pension, the authorities would also consider that the period of service of the father of the petitioner during which he was under suspension had been regularized and he was entitled to some arrear pay and allowances in terms of an order dated 10.01.2019.

¶28

In view of the ambiguity in paragraph-7, we require that the petitioner will file a representation before the Director of Higher Education, Assam stating the necessary fact that the father of the petitioner was entitled to some arrear pay and allowances in terms of an order dated 10.01.2019. In the event such representation is submitted, the Director will pass a reasoned order thereof and if the father of the petitioner is found to have been entitled for any arrear pay and allowances in terms of an order dated 10.01.2019, necessary order for payment be passed.

¶29

The requirement of passing the necessary reasoned order by the Director of Higher Education, Assam be done within a period of one month from the date

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

of receipt of such representation.

¶32

Contempt petition stands closed.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Uddipta Kashyap v. Gitimoni Phukan and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uddipta Kashyap v. Gitimoni Phukan 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

Chanchala Paul Vs Preetam Saikia and Anr.

Girindra Nath Dutta and 4 Ors. Vs Preetam Saikia and 3 Ors.

Taru Das Vs Phanindra Jidung, Aes and Anr.

Farhana Khanam Vs Preetom Saikia, IAS and 2 Ors.

Rudra Boro Vs Shantanu Das

Bosir Uddin Ahmed Vs Munindra Sarma, Acs

Durga Bahadur Sonar Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla and 2 Ors.

Manakso Taflap Vs Ayushi Sudan, IAS

Chanchala Paul Vs Preetam Saikia and Anr.

Danswrang Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Rupak Kumar Pawe Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dhanada Dihingia Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Md. Mizanur Rahman and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.