Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010018252025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/61/2025 IKBAL HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O-KABIR UDDIN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P. O. -KANAKPUR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI AND ANR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSAM STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:ALAKANANDA MEDHI THE STATE PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR ANCILLARY BLOCK-I (OPP. SBI SECTT. BRANCH) JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A J ATIA, MS J MARIYAM,MS A H ATIA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D NATH, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT,MR. R BORPUJARI,SR. GA, ASSAM BEFORE Page No.# 2/4 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 02.06.2026 Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue. 2. Mr R Sahinii, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. D Nath, learned Sr. Government Advocate who was requested by the Court to assist and apprise the Court. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in W.P(C) No. 3/2019 whereby the Co-ordinate bench while disposing of the matter directed the respondents as under: “14. From the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the respondent authorities have not only acted in clear contravention of the terms and conditions of the contract agreement as well as the provisions of the Rules of 1964 which were equally binding upon them but have also denied the protection and procedural safeguard of the principles of natural justice to the writ petitioner while terminating his service. 15. Assuming that the writ petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for the period mentioned in the show cause notice, even then, since he was entitled to leave including casual leave and earned leave for the period covering his period of absence and considering the ground on which the petitioner had to remain absent and also in view of the leave application allegedly submitted by him, it is not understood as to why, instead of considering his prayer for grant of leave, the petitioner’s service had to be terminated, that too, without holding a proper departmental enquiry. 16. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the Page No.# 3/4 impugned order of termination of service dated 17.11.2018 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set aside. 17. In the additional affidavit dated 12.09.2023 filed by the petitioner, it has been mentioned that there is a vacant post of Project Officer in the establishment of the State Project Coordinator, Assam State Disaster Management Authority which has not been filled up till today. The said assertion has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. Be that as it may, in view of the interference caused to the impugned order of termination of service dated 17.11.2018, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within two weeks from today. Upon such reinstatement, it will be open for the respondents to proceed against the writ petitioner afresh in accordance with law, or to take a fresh decision on the question of renewal of his contract, if so advised.” 4. Since this direction was not carried out, the petitioner has filed the contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in W.P(C) No. 3/2019. 5. The respondents upon their instructions has today placed before the court an order dated 27.05.2026, whereby the Chief Executive Officer of the Assam State Disaster Management Authority has upon considering the matter has re- instated the petitioner and posted him as District Project Officer, Sonitpur District with effect from the date of taking over charge. This order is extracted below: “ORDER Dated Dispur, the 27-05-2026 No. ECF-384047/488: Whereas, Shri Ikbal Hussain Laskar, former District Project Page No.# 4/4 Officer, Hailakandi District, was released from service w.e.f 11-08-2018 vide Release Order No. ASDMA.10/2010/134 dated 17-11-2018 based on the report of the District Commissioner, Hailakandi district, for unauthorized absence, and, Whereas, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, vide Judgement and Order dated 10- 092024 passed in WP (C) no. 3/2019 (Ikbal Hussain Laskar –VS- The State of Assam and others) had set aside the impugned order of termination dated 17-11-2018 and directed to re-instate the Petitioner, and upon his re-instatement, it will be open to the Respondents to proceed against the Writ Petitioner afresh in accordance with law, or to take a fresh decision on the question of renewal of contract, if so advised, and, Whereas, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has further, vide order dated 07-01-2026 in WA/361/2025, upheld the judgment and order of dated 10-09-2024, passed in WP(C) 3/2019, Therefore, in pursuance of the judgement and order of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court dated 10-09-2024, the Release Order dated 17-11-2018, releasing Shri Ikbal Hussain Laskar, former District Project Officer, Hailakandi District, is hereby revoked and Shri Ikbal Hussain Laskar, former District Project Officer, Hailakandi District is hereby reinstated and posted as District Project Officer, Sonitpur District, with effect from the date of taking oyer charge.” 6. Considering the above order, this Court is of the view that since the directions contained in the order dated 10.09.2024 Passed in W.P(C) No. 03/2019 have been complied with by the order extracted above, this Court does not consider it necessary to proceed any further in the contempt petition. 7. Accordingly the contempt petition stands closed. Notices issued stands recalled. JUDGE Comparing Assistant