Dismissed

Manas Ranjan Mohapatro v. Sanjeev Mittal and Anr.

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022Cont.Cas(C)/484/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the Gauhati High Court extended the compliance deadline for promotion orders previously directed in a writ petition. Following the Supreme Court's affirmation of earlier orders and the Railways' decision to implement them, the court directed compliance by 05.09.2022 and disposed of the petition with liberty to revive.

What did the court decide?

Direction to comply with promotion orders by 05.09.2022; liberty to revive in case of difficulty.

Manas Ranjan Mohapatro Vs Sanjeev Mittal and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010168432021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/484/2021

¶5

MANAS RANJAN MOHAPATRO

¶6

S/O SRI UMA CHARAN MOHAPATRO, R/O QUARTER NO. 168/B, CENTRAL GOTA NAGAR, MALIGAON, PIN-781011, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SANJEEV MITTAL AND ANR MEMBER INFRASTRUCTURE, PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MEMBER ENGINEERING, 1 RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001

¶9

2:PRASANNA KUMAR DIRECTOR GENERAL (HEALTH) RAILWAY BOARD 1 RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. UMA CHAKRABORTY (R1)

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 11-08-2022 R.M. Chhaya, C.J.

¶16

Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶17

A Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 24.02.2022 passed in Review Petition No.86/2021 came to the conclusion that there is no error in the original petition being WP(C) 5561/2020 wherein this Court on 16.08.2021 issued the following direction;

¶18

“We direct the Railway authority to forthwith grant promotion to the private respondent to a Group-B post with all consequential benefits, as contained in Para 10 of the order of the Tribunal.”

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s).10262-10263/2022 wherein the respondent authorities had challenged the order dated 24.02.2022 passed in Review Petition No.86/2021 as well as the order in review dated 16.08.2021 passed in WP(C) 5561/2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.07.2022 has been pleased to dismiss the petitions.

¶20

Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities has also placed on record a communication dated 10.08.2022 addressed by the Executive Director, Health (P), Railway Board to the General Manager (P), Northeast Frontier Railway informing him about the fact that the

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

competent authority in the Ministry of Railway has decided to implement the order of this Court dated 16.08.2021 as well as the order of the CAT dated 06.03.2020.

¶23

Mrs. U. Chakraborty states that as some permission is required, the respondent authorities require three week’s time to implement the order of this Court.

¶24

In light of the fact that now the orders are confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the respondents have also taken a decision to implement the same, we further direct the respondent authorities to comply with the direction issued by this Court latest by 05.09.2022.

¶25

In light of the aforesaid development, the present contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to revive in case of any difficulty.

¶26

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Manas Ranjan Mohapatro v. Sanjeev Mittal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manas Ranjan Mohapatro v. Sanjeev Mittal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Rajdeep Das Vs Amit Khare and 2 Ors.

Hemoram Das Vs Juri Phukhan and Anr.

M/S. Dangarkuchi Paka Betbari Meen Samabai Samittee Ltd. Vs Tilak Kr. Kalita

Anil Kumar Agarwal and 3 Ors. Vs Kumar Sanjay Krishna and 7 Ors.

Md. Abdul Kader Vs Rakesh Kumar

Forjan Nessa Vs v. v Rakesh Reddy

Trailokya Das Vs Nitin Khare and Anr.

Israfil Ali Vs Jadav Saikia, Acs and Anr.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ramjan Khan and 2 Ors.

Sri Rahmat Ali and 40 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Rs

Rajkumar Sah Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Sulakhyana Saikia Bharali Vs Prabin Saikia

Shamin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. F