Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010079112020 2026:GAU-AS:1041 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/215/2020 ARIJIT SONAR S/O. LT. GAUTAM SONAR, VILL. BHARAKHAI GRANT PART II, P.S. SILCHAR SADAR SUB DIVISION, SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS RAJ CHAKRABORTY AND 4 ORS. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY., GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND NH (ESTABLISHMENT) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:A. ANGAMUTHU THE COMM. AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:KEERTHI JALLI THE DY. COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 CUM CHAIRMAN DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE CACHAR SILCHAR-788001. 4:GANESH CH. BORA THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. SILCHAR BUILDING DIVISION Page No.# 2/5 CACHAR SILCHAR-788001. 5:SRI ROHAN KUMAR JHA IAS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR DISTRICT-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K PAUL, MR J P CHAUHAN,MS. R VERMA,MR. A SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA, MS. K PHUKAN (R5),MS. K PHUKAN,MR D KALITA,MR. D NATH,MR. A PHUKAN,MR P NAYAK,MR. B GOGOI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. J.P. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor Nos. 3 and 5. 2. By way of this petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is drawing the attention of this court to the alleged willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 4477/2019. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, by filing WP(C) No. 4477/2019, sought consideration of the petitioner’s case for appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme in view Page No.# 3/5 of the fact that his father, Late Gautam Sonar, expired on 27.10.2015. This court, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by observing and directing as under: “3. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to place the matter before the concerned DLC for reconsideration of the application of the petitioner for appointment under the scheme by examining the availability of vacancy in other Departments as provided under Para-15 of the OM dated 01.06.2015. 4. This exercise shall be done in the next DLC meeting or within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier, and intimating the result of the consideration to the petitioner by issuing a speaking order in this regard.” 4. Mr. J.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that despite the aforesaid order, no appointment has been granted. It is contended that vacancies are available in other departments of the State and failure to provide appointment amounts to deliberate disobedience of this court’s order. 5. Per contra, Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor Nos. 3 and 5, submits that the direction of this court was only for consideration of the petitioner’s case. It is placed on record that the petitioner’s case was duly placed not once but on four occasions, i.e., 04.10.2018, prior to the order of this court having been passed on 28.06.2019, and 06.03.2020, Page No.# 4/5 31.12.2021 and 30.01.2024, respectively; i.e., post the direction of this court. However, on account of the non-availability of a vacancy under the relevant scheme and roster position, the DLC did not recommend the petitioner’s case. It is further stated that the authorities have resolved to ascertain the vacancy position and to consider the appointment of the petitioner, if and when a vacancy arises, strictly as per the governing policy. In addition to the show cause reply filed by the respondent/contemnor Nos. 3 & 5, the up-to-date instruction received by the learned government counsel vide letter dated 21.01.2026 from the Office of the District Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, is being placed before this court along with a copy to the other side, which is taken on record and marked as “X.” 6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record. 7. The scope of contempt jurisdiction is well settled. The court in contempt proceedings is concerned only with whether there has been willful disobedience of the specific direction issued. It is not a forum to adjudicate the correctness, sufficiency, or merits of the decision taken in purported compliance with the court’s order. Once consideration as directed has been undertaken the court cannot in contempt jurisdiction sit in appeal over the decision of the authority or examine whether the claim ought to have been recommended. 8. In the present case, the original order of this court required consideration of the petitioner’s case. Materials placed before this court indicates that the case was placed before the DLC and a decision Page No.# 5/5 was taken. Whether such a decision is right or wrong, or whether vacancies existed in other departments, are matters falling outside the limited ambit of contempt jurisdiction and may be agitated in appropriate independent proceedings, if so advised. 9. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that willful disobedience of the order of this court is not made out. 10. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. 11. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the decision of the DLC/non-recommendation if permissible in law before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant