Smti. Kuntala Kalita v. Bibhash Modi and 2 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010145872023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCont.Cas(C)/418/2023o SMTI.oKUNTALAoKALITAo W/OoSRIoDILIPoBARUAH,oR/OoBARHALI,oNO.o3oSRIHATI,oP.O.-HALOGAON,o P.S.-SUALKUCHI,oDIST-KAMRUPo(R),oASSAM,oPIN-781103 VERSUSo BIBHASHoMODIoANDo2oORSo THEoDIRECTORoOFoSOCIALoWELFARE,oASSAM,oUZANoBAZAR,oGUWAHATI,o P.O.-UZANAoBAZAR,oPIN-781001 2:HIMANGSHUoHALOI oDISTRICToSOCIALoWELFAREoOFFICER oKAMRUPoRURALoDISTRICT oP.O.-AMINGAON oPIN-781031 3:SYEDoNASIURoRAHMAN oTHEoCHILDoDEVELOPMENToPROJECToOFFICER oHAJOoINTEGRATEDoCHILDoDEVELOPMENToPROJECT oP.O.-HAJO oDIST-KAMRUPo(R) oPIN-78110o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oSoCHAUHAN,oM.oBORUAH,MR.oPoMAZUMDERo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oMR.oMoBHAGABATIo(R-3),oAoLONGKUMERo(R-1),MSo TOSHISENLAo(R-1),MR.oRoDHARo(R-1),MS.oBoTALUKDARo(R-3),MSoGoBORAo(R-3)oo Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : Cont.Cas(C)/420/2023 SMTI. RINA KALITA W/O SRI UMESH KALITA R/O BAMUNDI HATIMURA P.O.-BAMUNDI P.S.-SUALKUCHI DIST-KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN-781103 VERSUS BIBHASH MODI AND 2 ORS THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI P.O.-UZANA BAZAR PIN-781001 2:HIMANGSHU HALOI DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER KAMRUP RURAL DISTRICT P.O.-AMINGAON PIN-781031 3:SYED NASIUR RAHMAN THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER HAJO INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT P.O.-HAJO DIST-KAMRUP (R) PIN-781102 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S CHAUHAN Advocate for : MR. M BHAGABATI (R-3) appearing for BIBHASH MODI AND 2 ORS Linked Case : Cont.Cas(C)/419/2023 SMTI MANOMOTI DEVI W/O SRI DEBAKANTA SHARMA R/O BAMUNDI P.O.-BAMUNDI PageoNo.#o3/5 oDIST-oKAMRUPo(R) oASSAM oPIN-731103 oVERSUS BIBHASHoMODIoANDo2oORS THEoDIRECTORoOFoSOCIALoWELFARE oASSAM oUZANoBAZAR oGUWAHATI oP.O.-UZANAoBAZAR oPIN-781001 2:HIMANGSHUoHALOI DISTRICToSOCIALoWELFAREoOFFICER oKAMRUPoRURALoDISTRICT oP.O.-AMINGAON oPIN-781031 o3:SYEDoNASIURoRAHMAN THEoCHILDoDEVELOPMENToPROJECToOFFICER oHAJOoINTEGRATEDoCHILDoDEVELOPMENToPROJECT oP.O.-HAJO oDIST-oKAMRUPo(R) oPIN-781102 o------------ oAdvocateoforo:oMR.oSoCHAUHAN Advocateoforo:oMR.oMoBHAGABATIo(R-3)oappearingoforoBIBHASHoMODIoANDo2o ORS ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSUMANoSHYAM ORDERo

30.09.2024 Heard Mr. R. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners in these Contempt case. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. Page No.# 4/5 These Contempt Cases arise out of similar nature of orders passed by the learned Single Judge in three different writ petitions individually instituted by the petitioners assailing the order dated 02.02.2021 whereby the petitioners were released from service. The learned Single Judge has suspended the orders dated 02.02.2021 by issuing interim order. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners have also been allowed to continue in the respective posts of Anganwadi Workers and they are also drawing their wages/salary accordingly. However, according to the petitioners, the amount of salary paid to them by the authorities is less than what they are entitled to. Hence, alleging contempt of court, these Contempt Cases have been filed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed affidavit taking a stand that the orders of the Court have been complied with. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioners have not been able to show that they are entitled to draw higher amount of salary/wages than what is being paid to them at present and therefore, the question of contempt does not arise in this case. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that the effective interim order passed by this Court in this case was staying the order of discharge/release from service dated 02.02.2021 in respect of the three petitioners. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioners are continuing in service. Therefore, question of contempt of court, in the opinion of this Court, does not arise in the facts of the case. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the amount of salary paid to them, it will be open to them to assert their right by filing appropriate petition before the Court. However, the said aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in these contempt cases. Page No.# 5/5 For the above reasons, these Contempt Cases are closed by granting liberty to the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievance, if any.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant