Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010108092025 2025:GAU-AS:14732 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/281/2025 TAPANJIT KONWAR AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE PUNYA KONWAR, RESIDENT OF VILL.- BORACHIRA, P.O.- BORACHIRA, P.S.- DHEMAJI, DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM. PIN - 787057 2: BIDYUT GOGOI SON OF DIMBESWAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF VILL.- CHOWKHAM GAON P.O.- GOWAL CHAPARI P.S.- DHEMAJI DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057. 3: PANKAJ BURAGOHAIN SON OF PUSPA BURAGOHAIN RESIDENT OF VILL.- NO. 2 BORACHIRA P.O.- BORACHIRA P.S.- DHEMAJI DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN - 787057 VERSUS JADAV SAIKIA, IAS AND 6 ORS. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, SECRETARIAT, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM. 2:RAKESH KUMAR IAS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN Page No.# 2/6 PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM. 3:CHIRANJIB ADHIKARY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM. 4:AMRIT DAS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NORTH LAKHIMPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. NORTH LAKHIMPUR -787001 DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 5:SUNIL PEGU THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DHEMAJI ELECTRICAL DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 ASSAM. 6:ANKUR SAIKIA THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DHEMAJI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. DIST.- DHEMAJI PIN-787057 ASSAM. 7:JUGANANDA DUTTA THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER DHEMAJI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. DIST.- DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A GOHAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P N GOSWAMI (R-1 TO 7)), MR BHARGAV DAS(R-1 TO 7),MR. K P PATHAK(R-1 TO 7)) Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Gohain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor Nos. 2 to 6. 2. By way of this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relevant rules, the petitioner is drawing the attention of this court to the alleged willful and deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of this court’s judgment and order dated 15.09.2023, whereby the respondent APDCL was directed to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more than 10 years up to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, i.e., 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned posts and as an one time measure their services may be regularized, and in the event they are found not to have worked for more than 10 years up to 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years, in the meantime to consider benefit of providing them the salary at least at a minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee. Paragraph 9, 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder for ready reference: - “9. In the instant case also as it is the claim of the petitioners that Page No.# 4/6 they have been working as contractual employees for more than 10 years and therefore would be entitled to the benefits as indicated in the above extracted portion of the judgment dated 17.01.2017. 10. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL is directed to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more than 10 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned vacant post, an onetime measure may be made for their regularization. If any of the petitioners are found not to have worked for more than 10 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years in the meantime, the respondents may consider them for a benefit of providing them the salary atleast in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be consistent with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA 45/2014. 11. As regards any of the petitioners who may not have satisfied the requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years, we request the respondent APDCL to also consider their case and find out a suitable economic package for them as per the acceptability of the respondent APDCL. Ordered accordingly.” 3. It further appears that in the aforesaid case, this court also requested the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and find out a suitable economic package for those petitioners who may not have satisfied the requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years as per the acceptability of the respondent APDCL. 4. Today when the matter is called Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor Nos. 2 to 6, places the speaking order dated 04.05.2025 issued by Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, in support of his contention that the respondents have complied with the direction passed by this court in the connected writ petition, which Mr. A. Gohain, learned counsel appearing for the Page No.# 5/6 petitioner, fairly concedes to. The speaking order dated 04.05.2025, reads as hereunder: - “ASSAM POWE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED No.MD/APDCL/HR/OS COURT CASE/2024-25/Pt-V/19 Date:04/05/2025 SPEAKING ORDER Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court has disposed of the writ petition WP(C) No 7/2021 vide Judgement and Order Dtd: 15-09-2023 directing ‘the respondent APDCL to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more than 10 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned vacant post, a onetime measure may be made for their regularization. If any of the petitioners are found not to have worked for more than 10 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years in the meantime, the respondents may consider them for a benefit of providing them the salary at least in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be consistent with the directions of the Division Bench of the Court in the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA 45/2014. As regards any of the petitioners who may not have satisfied the requirement of having worked continuously for 10 years, the respondent APDCL was requested to also consider their case and find out a suitable economic package for them as per the acceptability of respondent APDCL.’ Whereas, upon due consideration of the long-standing demand of outsource workers of the Company and keeping in mind the financial condition of the Company and with due approval from the Govt. of Assam, the Board of Directors of the Company vide Resolution No.- 93(1)(II) adopted in the Board Meeting dated 28.06.2023, had decided to provide enhanced remuneration to the outsourced workers who are getting direct and continuous payment from APDCL @ Rs. 12,000.00 for experience less than 5 years: @ Rs. 14,000.00 for experience equal to or more than 5 years but less than 10 years and @ Rs. 17,000.00 for experience equal to more than 10 years. Now therefore, a Committee vide Office Order No.- MD/APDCL/HR/OS COURT CASE/2024-25/Pt-V/17 dtd Page No.# 6/6 01.07.2025 was constituted, for the purpose of verification of the payment records and other relevant documents of the petitioners. Upon verification of the documents, the petitioners could not produce continuous payment records, reflecting remuneration for substantial working days in a month. As such, due to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions for payment under enhanced remuneration, APDCL did not find sufficient ground to consider the petitioners for payment under enhanced remuneration. Chief General Manager (HRA) APDCL Bijulee Bhawan, Ghy-1” 5. Reading the aforesaid speaking order, it appears that the respondents have already considered the claims of the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid directions of this court. That being so, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter. However, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in this regard. 6. The contempt petition is according disposed of. 7. The speaking order is kept on record and marked as “X”. JUDGE Comparing Assistant