Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10476 (GAU)

Siraj Uddin S/o- Lt Tahir Ali v. V. K. Pipersenia

2026-04-23

Soumitra Saikia

body2026
JUDGMENT : SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. M. Islam learned counsel for the petitioners; also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 09.11.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 3109/2014. 3. The writ petitioners before this Court were Extra-writers in the Registration Department, Government of Assam and were engaged on a daily wage basis by the notification dated 19.05.1989. The Extra-Writers who worked continuously for 7(seven) years were regularized in the scale of pay of Rs. 470- 800/- per month. Subsequently, the procedure of direct recruitment for extra- writers was unavailable by the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Grade III and Grade IV) Rules, 1997. It was the case projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the Writ Court that they are not included as a cadre in the Assam Registration Service Rules of 2010. Under the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules 2010, these extra writers were shown to be a cadre under the Registration Department. Therefore, it was a case projected before the Court that since the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules 2010 had clearly indicated the Extra-writers to be a cadre within the Registration Department, and their promotional avenues to the next higher cadres are required to be prescribed by the Department. This matter ultimately came to be disposed of and the Writ Court had passed the following directions: “23. In view of the reasons stated above, it would be in the interest of justice if some middle ground is found by the Government, inasmuch as, a new post may be created, which would have higher pay scale than the Extra Writers, which would enable the Extra Writers to be promoted to the next higher post. In this respect, the State Government would have to consider modifying the 2010 Rules. 24. In view of the reasons stated above, the State Government should consider giving promotional avenues to the Extra Writers within the framework of the 2010 Rules or within the Registration Department. 25. The entire exercise should be conducted by the State Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court. 26. 25. The entire exercise should be conducted by the State Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court. 26. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.” 4. According to the petitioners, since no steps were taken in terms of the above directions, therefore the present contempt petition has been filed. 5. A careful perusal of the directions of the coordinate bench reveals that the Court had accepted the contention of the petitioners that the promotional avenues are to be prescribed for the Extra-Writers, and for which the State Government was required to consider modification of the Assam Services Rules 2010. Subsequently, during the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the Respondents have submitted that the framing of a new Service Rule is presently pending approval at the highest level before the State Cabinet. That apart, it was urged that since this falls within the exclusive domain of the State as it is a policy decision, the steps undertaken by the State to frame the draft rules, which is pending for approval before the Cabinet, should be accepted as compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 09.11.2016. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have been perused. 7. In the context of the present Contempt Proceedings, it is seen that the direction of the Coordinate Bench to the Respondents, namely the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Revenue (Registration) Department, the Inspector General of Registration, Assam was to take all steps for framing a new Service Rules. This draft Service Rules which are Rules render Article 309, and therefore are presently pending before the State Cabinet for its due approval. When any Rule is proposed to be framed under Article 309, necessary approval is required to be obtained from the State Cabinet. Draft Rules are not framed under any statute which can be modified by the Department as there Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the same will require sanction by the Governor of the State and for which the appropriate Department has taken steps to place it before the State Cabinet. Draft Rules are not framed under any statute which can be modified by the Department as there Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the same will require sanction by the Governor of the State and for which the appropriate Department has taken steps to place it before the State Cabinet. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the State respondents have taken necessary steps as per the directions contained in the order dated 09.11.2026, passed in WP(C) No. 3109/2024 for framing a new set of Rules, which however, as stated, is pending for approval before the State Cabinet. Whether the State Cabinet would approve or should approve, in one manner or the other, is not for the Writ Court to issue any directions. 8. In Union of India & Ors. v. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 773 , the Apex Court while examining the question whether a Writ Court should entertain the procedure which fall exclusively within the domain of policy decisions, the Apex Court held that where policy decisions are required to be undertaken by the State ordinarily a Writ Court is not required to entrance on the domain by issuing a writ to the State to undertake the policy in one way or the other. This view of the Apex Court is subsequently been followed and fortified by several other pronouncements of the Apex Court. 9. While exercising contempt jurisdiction, issues raised in the original proceedings are not required to be re-opened as it may have the effect of raising other questions, including the plea of equities, which would normally fall for consideration in the original proceedings. The Contempt Court is in the nature of an executing court for execution and implementation of the order passed in the original proceedings. The Contempt Court is not concerned as to whether the original order was right or wrong. Ordinarily it is not expected to take a different view or go beyond the issues which were urged in the original proceedings. It cannot ordinarily give any additional directions or delete a direction which was earlier issued. If such restrains do not operate on the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction, then it may amount to exercising a review jurisdiction by the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction in respect of the original proceedings. It cannot ordinarily give any additional directions or delete a direction which was earlier issued. If such restrains do not operate on the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction, then it may amount to exercising a review jurisdiction by the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction in respect of the original proceedings. When the claims of the parties have been adjudicated upon and the same has attained finality, it is not open for any party to go behind the said orders and attempt to take away or truncate the effect thereof. Reference in this context may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Gautam Goswami and others” reported in 2008 5 SCC 339 . Although the Supreme Court was exercising its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, the principles and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment are equally applicable to the High Courts. 10. In that view of the matter, when the direction of the Writ Court vide order dated 09.11.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 3109/2014 was to the State Department to take steps to frame new rules and where the State has taken steps to draft a set of rules, which are presently stated to be pending approval before the State Cabinet, this Court is of the considered view that the directions contained in the order dated 09.11.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 3109/2014 have been complied with and, under the facts and circumstances of the case this Contempt Proceeding is not required to be proceeded with any further. 11. Accordingly this contempt petition stands closed. 12. Notices issued, Stands recalled.