Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020006762024 2025:GAU-NL:392 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : COP(C)/33/2024 SHRI C. CHINGO KONYAK CHI VILLAGE MON NAGALAND VERSUS SHRI J ALAM, IAS AND 5 ORS CHIEF SECRETARY NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:SHRI ANOOP KHINCHI IAS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:SHRI K.S. ANDEN KONYAK IAS COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:SHRI AJIT KUMAR VERMA IAS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MON NAGALAND 5:SHRI MOHAMMAD ALI SHIHAB IAS Page No.# 2/3 COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:SHRI WENNYEI KONYAK NCS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MON NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : KEKHRIESENUO, H ZELIANG Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 26-08-2025 1. The petitioner had filed the instant contempt petition under section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with the Contempt of Courts (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, dated 27.06.2024 in WP(C)/80/2023, whereby in Para 10 of the said judgment and order, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment along with the other eligible candidates in terms of the OM dated 17.09.2015 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within an outer limit of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kekhriesenuo, submits Page No.# 3/3 that in the meantime vide order dated 13.08.2025, the case of the petitioner, Shri. C. Chingo Konyak, for compassionate appointment has been considered and he has already been appointed by the State in the post of Dobashi Grade-II under the scheme of compassionate appointment. 3. In this backdrop, the learned counsel for the respondents; Mr. N. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 1, Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate for the respondent no. 3 and Ms. Supong Chang, learned Government Advocate for the respondent no. 6, submits that in view of the above development, the contempt petition may be closed. 4. It is well settled that the exercise of contempt jurisdiction is not really a mode of execution of the orders of the Court, and the issue of contempt, if any, after being pointed out by the petitioner, is between the Court and the alleged contemnor. 5. Nevertheless, in view of the aforesaid development, it would be just and fair as well, to close this contempt proceeding. 6. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition stands closed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant