Dismissed

Sathil Deka v. Borsing Rongpi and Anr.

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2022Cont.Cas(C)/535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged non-compliance of a 2017 High Court order in a compassionate appointment matter. The Court examined meeting minutes from 2008 and 2019, concluding that the petitioner's application had been duly considered and rejected by the District Level Committee in 2019. It held that the earlier order was complied with and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed/dismissed.

Sathil Deka Vs Borsing Rongpi and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010263612018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/535/2018

¶5

SATHIL DEKA

¶6

S/O. SRI LALIT CH. DEKA, VILL. NAGAON, MOUZA- DIPILA, (MANGALDOI), DIST. DARRANG, PIN-784125.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

BORSING RONGPI AND ANR. CHIEF ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DEPTT., (WATER RESOURCE DEPTT.), CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-03.

¶9

2:SRI DEBA PRASAD BORA

¶10

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER E AND D DIVISION (WATER RESOURCE DEPTT.) MANGALDOI DARRANG PIN-784125

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A J ATIA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B GOSWAMI (R1, R2)

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

05.09.2022

¶16

Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

Goswami, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶19

This Contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the order dated 26.10.2017 passed in WP(C) No.4046/2009 has not been complied with. The matter relates to the application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The case of the petitioner was initially placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), Darrang, which recommended the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide it’s meeting minutes dated 19.05.2007. However, the State Level Committee (SLC) rejected the case of the petitioner. After rejection of the petitioner’s case by the SLC on the ground of lack of vacancy, the respondent authorities had given appointment to some persons, who had been initially recommended by the DLC, but rejected by the SLC. As the petitioner was of the view that his case should have been considered by the DLC along with those persons whose names were subsequently recommended for compassionate appointment, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.4046/2009 before this Court.

¶20

This Court, vide order dated 26.10.2017 disposed of WP(C) No.4046/2009, by holding that the case of the petitioner should be placed before the next available DLC for it’s consideration. It also held that if it was found that the case of the petitioner had been placed before the DLC but was rejected, the decision taken should be communicated to the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner thereafter has filed the present Contempt petition, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 26.10.2017, passed by this Court in WP(C)

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

No.4046/2009. During proceedings of this Contempt Case, a communication dated 11.01.2019 was produced before this Court by the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Water Resources Division, which stated that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment had been placed before the DLC in it’s meeting minutes dated 12.06.2008. However, the same was rejected.

¶24

On perusal of the DLC meeting minutes dated 12.06.2008, this Court had found that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned and in that view of the matter, this Court had asked the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Water Resources Division to remain present before this Court, to explain his conduct with regard to the communication dated 11.01.2019.

¶25

Accordingly, Sri Deba Prasad Borah, Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Water Resources Division, who had made the communication dated 11.01.2019 is present before this Court.

¶26

A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Sri Deba Prasad Borah shows that 6 (six) names, including that of the petitioner, have been sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang for consideration of the DLC, vide forwarding letter dated 06.06.2008. The DLC meeting minutes dated 12.06.2008 shows that 3 (three) of the persons, whose names are reflected in Annexure-III of the forwarding letter dated 06.06.2008, have been recommended for appointment against Grade-IV posts. However, the names of the petitioner and two others namely Sri Mintu Das and Sri Golap Deka have not been mentioned in the DLC meeting minutes dated 12.06.2008. The same implies that they have not been

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity with the communication dated 11.01.2019 made by Sri Deba Prasad Borah, Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Water Resources Division. The wrong understanding of the communication dated 11.01.2019 is only due to the fact that petitioner’s name and the names of Sri Mintu Das and Sri Golap Deka, have not been reflected in the DLC meeting minutes dated 12.06.2008.

¶29

The above being said, Mr. B. Goswami has submitted letter no. MWRD/Esstt-22/2019-20/52 dated 16.08.2019, issued by the respondent no.2, which shows that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment had been rejected by the DLC in it’s meeting held on 31.05.2019. The meeting minutes of the DLC dated 31.05.2019 are also annexed to the affidavit-inopposition at Annexure-V, filed by the respondent no.2.

¶30

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order dated 26.10.2017 in WP(C) No.4046/2009 has been complied with. The Contempt petition is accordingly closed.

¶31

The personal appearance of Sri Deba Prasad Borah is accordingly dispensed with.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Sathil Deka v. Borsing Rongpi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathil Deka v. Borsing Rongpi and Anr.

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

Uddipta Bharadwaj Vs Preetom Saikia and 3 Ors.

Atowar Rahman @ Atowar Hussain and 10 Ors. Vs Minakhsi Sundaram and 63 Ors.

Universal Pipes (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Siddharth Singh and 3 Ors.

R.Zadingliana and 22 Ors. Vs Dr Renu Sharma, IAS and 2 Ors.

Bharati Daimari Vs Mr. G D Tripathi and Anr.

Ananda Deka Vs Sri Siddharth Singh and 2 Ors.

Jiban Ch Barman and Anr. Vs Smti Bijoya Chaudhary, Acs and Anr.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Subodh Kumar Singh

Mahesh Ch. Nath Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sokuntala Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Monuj Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jahena Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abul Kalam Azad and 16 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dr. Narendra Nath Ganguly Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.