Disposed

Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Nitin Agarwal and Anr.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2024Cont.Cas(C)/141/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a 17.08.2023 writ order directing deemed service and voluntary retirement with pensionary benefits. Noting the order fixed no implementation timeline, the court disposed of the petition directing compliance within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to comply with the judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 in WP(C)/2626/2011 within three months; contempt petition disposed of.

Nirmal Kumar Sharma Vs Nitin Agarwal and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010016522024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/141/2024

¶5

NIRMAL KUMAR SHARMA S/O- SHRI PREM NATH SHARMA, VILL- KUNDE LALOWAL, P.O- JANGAL, TEHSIL, GURDASPUR, DIST- GURDASPUR, PUNJAB, PIN143521

¶6

VERSUS NITIN AGARWAL AND ANR CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD , NEW DELHI 2:HARDEEP SINGH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN-79300

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : RAJESH MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent :

¶8

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Date : 15.03.2024

¶11

Heard Mr. N. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

By this contempt petition, the petitioner is alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C)/2626/2011.

¶14

The operative portion of the order dated 17.08.2023 reads as under:

¶15

“22. Upon considering the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is deemed to be in service till today and he is allowed to go on voluntary retirement w.e.f. today. This Court also agrees with the submission of Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents that allowing the petitioner to be reinstated would effect the administrative exigency of a disciplined service and in the further opinion of this Court, the Petitioner may not be able to cope up after the long passage of 20 years. It is also the opinion of this Court that as the petitioner had not rendered any service during this period, the question of the petitioner getting any benefits for the said period such as salary, promotion, etc. would not arise. However, as the petitioner would be deemed retired as on today, the said period of service be counted towards the pensionary benefits while computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

¶16

Accordingly, this Court sets aside the purported resignation of the Petitioner dated 08.04.2003 as well as the order dated 25.04.2003 whereby the Petitioner’s resignation was accepted. The petitioner would be deemed to be in service till today and the Petitioner be permitted to go on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 18.08.2023. The Respondent Authorities shall issue necessary orders in compliance to the said directions thereby permitting the Petitioner to go on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 18.08.2023. This Court further directs that during this period from 30.04.2003 till date, the petitioner would be entitled to any of the benefits such as salary, promotion, etc. but the said period till date shall be taken into consideration for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The above directions are passed taking into account the exceptional facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶17

Accordingly, in terms with the above observations and directions, this instant writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶18

Page No.# 3/3

¶19

A perusal of the order dated 17.08.2023, would indicate that no time frame was given for implementation of the directions passed in the said Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2023.

¶20

Accordingly this contempt petition is disposed of directing the respondents to comply with the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2023, passed in WP(C)/2626/2011 within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.

¶21

Contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Nitin Agarwal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Nitin Agarwal 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

Taher Barbhuiya Vs J.B. Ekka, IAS

Satya Daimari @ Satya Ram and 25 Ors. Vs Pallav Gopal Jha, IAS

Jariana Parbin Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, IAS and Anr.

Mrs. Kulsan Nessa Vs Sudip Bandyopadhyay

Md. Muslim Ali Vs Sri Akash Deep, IAS and Ors.

Smti. Nijara Gogoi Boruah @ Mrinali Barua @ Mrinali Boruah Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, IAS and Anr.

Ghanashyam Das Vs Juri Phukan and Anr.

Nitu Gogoi and 10 Ors. Vs Narayan Konwar and Anr.

Gopal Doley Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Taher Barbhuiya Vs J.B. Ekka, IAS

Manish Kumar Sharma Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Krishna Prasad Laskar and 41 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abdul Hannan Mazumder Vs Momta Hojai

Runa Laila Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.