Disposed¶29

Khagen Kalita v. Manish Thakur and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC18 Sept 2025Cont.Cas(C)/595/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court contempt petition Cont.Cas(C)/595/2023, Khagen Kalita v. Manish Thakur & 2 Ors., decided 19.09.2025 by Justice Soumitra Saikia. Alleged willful disobedience of directions in order dated 18.11.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 530/2021 regarding compassionate appointment reconsideration before the District Level Committee (DLC) of Kamrup (M). DLC meeting of 28.11.2023 recommended petitioner for Grade-IV post under Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department; placement before State Level Committee pending. Directions held complied with; contempt petition closed and notices recalled.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; notices issued stand recalled; no further proceedings in the contempt matter as the directions of the order dated 18.11.2022 stand complied with. ¶29

Khagen Kalita Vs Manish Thakur and 2 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010207832023

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/595/2023

¶6

KHAGEN KALITA

¶7

S/O LATE NAREN KALITA, R/O VILL- BAR SIMALUA, P.O.-ATHGHARIA, P.S.-NALBARI, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781347

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

MANISH THAKUR AND 2 ORS

¶10

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶11

2:RAHUL JAVIR

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI-3

¶13

3:PALLAV GOGOI

¶14

THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS S A KHALIFA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. D DAS BARMAN (R-3), M KATAKY (r-2),MS. P CHUTIA (r3)

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

19.09.2025

¶21

Heard Ms, K Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.M. Kotoky, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶22

This contempt petition has been filed being aggrieved by the willful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 530/2021. By the said order, the Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondents to place the matter pertaining to consideration of compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner before the next available DLC of Kamrup (M) district for a fresh consideration on the claim of the petitioner as to whether he is eligible for a Grade-II post or a Grade-IV post and if he is found to be eligible for a Grade-IV post and to consider him accordingly.

¶23

Pursuant to the said direction passed, the matter was placed before the District Level Committee and the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.11.2023 had recommended the case of the petitioner for being appointed in a Grade-IV post under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. The matter is now required to be placed before the State Level Committee.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that all steps have been taken by the respondents to have the matter placed before the State Level Committee and as and when the meeting is held, the case of the petitioner will be considered.

¶25

Considering the submissions made, it is seen that the direction contained in the order dated 18.11.2022 was to the respondents to place the matter before

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

the next available District Level Committee of Kamrup (M) district for a fresh consideration. That consideration was undertaken by the District Level Committee by its meeting held on 28.11.2023 and the case of the petitioner whose consideration appears at Sl. 5 of the said minutes have been taken up and the petitioner has been recommended for appointment in a Grade-IV post.

¶28

Under such circumstances, the directions contained in the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in W.P(C) No. 530/2021 stands complied with. This Court therefore does not wish to proceed any further in the contempt proceedings.

¶29

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.

¶30

Notices issued stands recalled.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Khagen Kalita v. Manish Thakur and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khagen Kalita v. Manish Thakur and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharma Kanta Charah and Anr. Vs Ananda Kr. Das and Ors.

Smt. Manjula Das Vs Bibekananda Das

Nandadhar Kalita Vs Harmeet Singh, IPS

Ajitav Choudhury Vs Mukut Phukan and Anr.

Sh. C.L. Thianghlima Vs Sh. K.Lalthawmmawia, Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Dp and Ar

Suman Malakar Vs J. Keerthi, I.A.S.

Safikul Ali Vs Partha Sarthi Mahanta, IPS

Dr Baikuntha Barman Vs Dr. Sidharth Singh, IAS and 2 Ors.

Anirban Bhowal Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India and 2 Ors.

The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs Tadar Mamang and 10 Ors.

The Arunachal Pradesh Pubic Service Commission Vs Kompar Kena and 37 Ors.

M/S. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Tusar Pratim Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jitanjali Islary Vs the State of Assam and Ors.