Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010236072023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/659/2023 KABI CHANDRA TALUKDAR AMAYAPUR, NEAR GITAMANDIR, H/N-38, P.O. AND P.S.- NOONMATI, GUWAHATI- 781020, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS PABITRA RAM KHAUND, I.A.S. AND 5 ORS. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM. 2:K.M. GOPAL SANA RAJKUMAR THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSAM. 3:MANIK NATH THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE(IRRIGATION) MAHABHAIRAB TEZPUR- 784001 ASSAM. 4:NABA KUMAR BAYAN THE DIRECTOR DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION (MAJOR AND MEDIUM) IRRIGATION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 5:PURNENDU BARMAN SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781029. 6:BIRAJ KR. PATHAK A.F.S. THE TREASURY OFFICER NEW GUWAHATI TREASURY OFFICE CHANDMARI COLONY GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S SARMA, PARTHA R CHOUDHURY,MR. A SAXENA Advocate for the Respondent : MR A CHALIHA (r-6), MR. N UPADHAYAY (R-1),MR. D NATH,MR P NAYAK (r-6),MR. B GOGOI (r-6) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 20.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhayay, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5. 2. The contempt petition has been filed alleging willful deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No.702/2018, by which this Court had set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 along with the decision to recover the amount of Rs.7,41,343/- Page No.# 3/5 towards excess drawal of pay and allowances for the petitioner’s period of alleged overstay in service from 01.02.2015 to 30.11.2016. It was further directed that in the event the Government desired to re-fix the date of birth of the petitioner, then the same should be done by conducting a proper enquiry, which should be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date the judgment and order. In the event no such enquiry was conducted, then the pension and other retiral benefit of the petitioner should be finalized and the entire dues should be disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the judgment. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the enquiry conducted by the respondents, which concluded that the claim of the petitioner could not be substantiated by any supporting document, was not completed within the specific time limit set in the judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No.702/2018. In fact, there was a delay of 1 (one) year 3 (three) months in completing the enquiry. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. Paragraph-20 and 21 of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No.702/2018 states as follows : “20. It is iterated, at the cost of repetition, the case herein is that the employer of the employee i.e. the petitioner has sought to re-fix the date of birth of the petitioner by changing the same from 02.03.1957, already recorded in the service book of the petitioner a long years earlier, to 02.01.1955. As has been observed above, the State has the authority and the power to re-fix the date of Page No.# 4/5 birth of a Government employee even though a different date was accepted by the Government at the time of appointment, but the same can be done only after an enquiry. It is, thus, upto the State respondent to decide about the further course of action in the matter. If a decision is taken to proceed with the enquiry, then the State respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry from the stage where the infraction had occurred and complete the enquiry by following the mandatory procedure laid down under the Rules but the same must be completed within a period of 3 [three] months from today, considering the fact that the dispute originated in the year 2016. Any decision in relation to recovery on the ground of alleged overstay in service by the petitioner will abide by the findings and decision arrived at such enquiry with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. It is provided further that in the event the State respondents take a decision that the there would be no further enquiry, then they should process the matter of pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner by taking the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.03.1957 and thereafter upon finalization, disburse the entire dues to the petitioner within a period of 2 [two] months from today. 21. It is also made clear that by this determination, this Court has not made any comment on the merits of the respective claims of the parties regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The interim order passed earlier stands merged with this order. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.” 6. The inquiry made in pursuance to the above order though belated, has come to a finding that the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.01.1955 and his date of superannuation was 30.01.2015. The Office Order dated 31.07.2025, which is made in pursuance to paragraph-20 of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No.702/2018 states as follows : “No. ACE/IMP/M&M/PE/752/89/120 In pursuance to Pars 20 of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Judgement Order Dated 30-08-2022, the authorities of the Irrigation Department constituted an enquiry committee vide No.CEI(E)353746/125 Dated/20-09-2023/ to make an enquiry Page No.# 5/5 regarding the actual Date of Birth (DOB) of Sri Kabi Ch. Talukdar, Retired Tracer. Accordingly, the enquiry committee asked Sri Kabi Ch. Talukdar, Retired Tracer to take part in the enquiry process, but he refused the same vide letter Dated 12-10-2023. Thereafter, the enquiry committee, after thorough, enquiry, submitted its enquiry report Dated 03-11-2023 whereby the actual DOB of Sri Kabi Ch. Talukdar, Retired Tracer was established as 01-01-1955. However, as per HSLC certificate of Sri Kabi Ch. Talukdar, Retired Tracer relied on by the enquiry committee, his age, as on 01-03-1972 was 17 Years 02 Months 0 Days. Therefore as per O.M. No.FEG.26/2012/29 Dated 31-10-2012 of Finance Department, his date of birth is to be computed as 02-01-1955 and as such his date of retirement would be 31-01-2015. Accordingly, it is decided to recover the excess overdrawn salary for the period of overstay beyond his legitimate date of retirement (i.c. 31- 01-2015) amounting to Rs. 7,41,343/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Forty One Thousand Three Hundred Forty Three only) from his pensionary benefits. Sri Kabi Ch. Talukdar, Retired Tracer is hereby directed to re-submit his pension papers for onward submission to the higher authority as well as the Accountant General.” 7. Though there is a delay in completing the enquiry in coming to a decision, this Court finds that the judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No.702/2018 has been complied with. 8. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant