VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2023 › High Court of Gauhati

Ms. Manju Gupta v. Bharat Bhusan Dev Choudhury and 4 Ors

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
1 February 2023
Bench
Michael Zothankhumaauthor
Case no.
Cont.Cas(C) 442/2022

Judgment

ORDER Date : 01-02-2023 Heard Mrs. R Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. FZ Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶2The petitioner has filed this contempt petition for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 2932/2022, on the ground that the payment of salary has been stopped in view of the discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the Service Book vis-à-vis the date of birth recorded in the HSLC certificate. Page No.# 3/5

¶3The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has not been paid her salary from August 2021 and it was in that view of the matter that the petitioner had filed WP(C) No. 2932/2022.

¶4The petitioner's counsel submits that as this Court had stayed the decision of the State respondents to stop paying the salary of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the payment of salary from August, 2021.

¶5Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has submitted a Speaking Order dated 28.09.2022, issued by the office of the Inspector of Schools, Sonitpur District Circle, Tezpur, which is to the effect that the discrepancy regarding the date of birth of the petitioner has been enquired into, wherein the petitioner was also present. In this regard, the Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh has also written a letter No. M.S.P./Satyapan/30/902/2022-33 dated 08.09.2022, which proves that the petitioner's date of birth was 06.10.1958 and not 30.03.1966 as claimed by her in her Service Book. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was allowed to go on retirement from her service w.e.f. 31.10.2018.

¶6Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel thus prays that the contempt petition should be closed, as there is no case of contempt made out.

¶7Mr. FZ Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 also makes Page No.# 4/5 the same submission as Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶8As per the Speaking Order dated 28.09.2022 issued by the office of the Inspector of Schools, the petitioner's date of birth is actually 06.10.1958 and not

30.03.1966. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said speaking order, the petitioner would have to make a challenge to the same. Besides the above, the question of the petitioner being paid her salary from August 2021 would not arise, as the Speaking Order has to be deemed to be a valid order unless and until it is set aside by a Court.

¶9In the case of State of Kerala vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambair, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 435, the Apex Court has held that all official decisions are presumed to be valid until set aside or held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction.

¶10In view of the decision of the Apex Court and as the Speaking Order dated 28.09.2022 has to be deemed to be a valid decision as on date, wherein the petitioner has been declared to be retired w.e.f. 31.10.2018, the payment of wages subsequent to that period would not arise. Accordingly, no case of contempt has been made out.

¶10The contempt petition is accordingly closed. Page No.# 5/5

¶11The speaking order dated 28.09.2022 is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-"X".

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Case details

Parties and counsel

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010151332022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCont.Cas(C)/442/2022o MS.oMANJUoGUPTAo D/OoBISWAoNATHoPRASADoGUPTA,oASSISTANToTEACHER,oVIVEKANANDAo BIDYAPITHoH.S,oDHEKIAJULI,oDIST-SONITPUR,oPIN-784110 VERSUSo BHARAToBHUSANoDEVoCHOUDHURYoANDo4oORS.o SECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oEDUCATIONo(SECONDARY)o DEPARTMENT,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-6 2:MS.oMAMATAoHOJAI oDIRECTORoOFoSECONDARYoEDUCATION oASSAM oKAHILIPARA oGUWAHATI-19 3:PRABHAToDAS oINSPECTORoOFoSCHOOLS oSONITPURoDISTRICToCIRCLE oTEZPUR oDIST-SONITPUR oASSAM 4:AMITAVAoCHOUDHURY oHEADoMASTER oVIVEKANANDAoBIDYAPITHoH.S oDHEKIAJULI Page No.# 2/5 DIST-SONITPUR PIN-784110 5:BABUL KANTI DAS PRESIDENT SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE VIVEKANANDA BIDYAPITH H.S DHEKIAJULI DIST-SONITPUR PIN-78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : MR F Z MAZUMDER (r-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.