Disposed

Ranjit Kumar Deb v. Sachibrata Choudhury and Anr.

Gauhati HC19 Jun 2023Cont.Cas(C)/387/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Suman Shyam closed a contempt case alleging willful disobedience of a reinstatement order. The court held that reinstatement and medical board examination were impossible as the petitioner had expired, and the case was dismissed with liberty for heirs to seek other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to legal heirs to pursue other appropriate legal remedy.

Ranjit Kumar Deb Vs Sachibrata Choudhury and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010013822014

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/387/2014

¶5

RANJIT KUMAR DEB

¶6

S/O SRI RAMENDRA KUMAR DEB, VILL. and P.O. PANCHGRAM, DISTHAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SACHIBRATA CHOUDHURY and ANR.

¶9

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD., CACHAR PAPER MILL, PANCHAGRAM, P.O. PANCHGRAM, DISTHAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶10

2:SANJOY CHOUDHURY THE MANAGER LEGAL HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. CACHAR PAPER MILL PANCHGRAM P.O. PANCHGRAM DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶11

3:JAGADISH DEBNATH THE MANAGER LEGAL HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPN. LTD. CACHAR PAPER MILL PANCHAGRAM P.O.- PANCHAGRAM- 788802 DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T U LASKAR

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.J ROY

¶14

Page No.# 2/2

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶16

ORDER

¶17

19.06.2023

¶18

Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

This Contempt Case has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 03.10.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.2877/2006 whereby a

¶20

direction was issued to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner

¶21

and thereafter, reinstate him in service and pay all back wages with effect from 20.12.2005.

¶22

Mr. Hussain submits that during the pendency of this proceeding the petitioner has expired and he is unable to establish contact with the legal heirs of the petitioner.

¶23

Be that as it may, in so far as the order for reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned, the said order cannot be implemented as the petitioner has already expired. The direction to pay back wages would only be a

¶24

consequential relief which would be permissible if the petitioner is reinstated after subjecting him to examination by a medical board, which is also not possible at this stage.

¶25

As such, this contempt case is hereby closed by granting liberty to the legal heirs of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate legal remedy as may be

¶26

available to them under the law, if so advised.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Ranjit Kumar Deb v. Sachibrata Choudhury and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Deb v. Sachibrata Choudhury 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

Bidyawati Baruah Hanse Vs Kalyan B Chakraborty, IAS and 2 Ors.

Azad Rahman Laskar Vs H. N. Gautam

Kunjalata Borah Vs Devashish Gangopadhya and 3 Ors.

Anwar Hussain Mazumder Vs Pritam Saikia and 4 Ors.

Rabia Bewa Vs Shri Tarun Dey

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jayanta Kumar Goswami

MD Julfikar Ali and 10 Ors. Vs Shyam Neorah

Manalisa Das Vs Amitabh Rajkhowa, Acs and Anr.

Abu Nesar Azizul Hussain and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Md. Ashir Ali Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Mamidul Hassan Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pratap Sing Basumatari and 8 Ors. Vs Md. V.K. Pipersenia and Anr.

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs Dr. Madhaiyaan Angamuthu and Ors.

Jasbant @ Jashbant Lal Goala Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.