Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010137762025 2026:GAU-AS:68 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/682/2025 AHMED HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY S/O LATE AKADDAS ALI CHOUDHURY, R/O VILL. ALGAPUR PART I, P.O.- KALIBARI BAZAR, P.S.- ALGAPUR, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788150 VERSUS SYEDAIN ABBASI, IAS AND 6 ORS. SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:JAYANT NARLIKAR IAS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:PRANAB KUMAR DAS CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 4:TAPAS KUMAR ROY ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PHE BARAK VALLEY ZONE SILCHAR GHUNGOOR SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM PIN-788014 5:TAPAS KUMAR ROY SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PHE HAILAKANDI CIRCLE NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 6:ATINTRA BIJOY CHOUDHURY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE HAILAKANDI DIVISION NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 7:DR. GAURAV KUMAR ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-78102 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. AMS Mazumdar Advocate for the respondent(s): B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 05.01.2026 This is an application filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in WP(C)No.5343/2021. 2. This Court had duly perused the order dated 20.06.2024 and from a perusal Page No.# 3/3 of the said order, it is seen that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the contention that the petitioner in WP(C)No.5343/2021 is entitled to pension. However, it was observed that if the other Work-Charged employees working in other or similarly situated Departments are extended the benefit of pension then the cases of the writ petitioners may also be considered for grant of such benefit by the Government. 3. It is the opinion of this Court that without there being any adjudication that in similarly situated Departments pension has been granted to Work-Charged employees, no case of contempt can be made out. 4. During the course of dictation of the present order, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant contempt application and file a separate writ proceeding indicating that in similarly situated Departments, pension has been paid to the Work-Charged employees and the case of the petitioner has not been considered. 5. Considering the above, the instant contempt proceedings stands dropped without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to file a separate writ petition, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant