Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010042802022 2026:GAU-AS:3291 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/115/2022 MD. FAKHRUL ISLAM @ MAKHAN ISLAM S/O LATE AKBAR ALI, R/O K.B. ROAD, WARD NO. 13, P.O. AND P.S.-NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787001 VERSUS G.D. TRIPATHI, IAS AND 2 ORS. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:DR. AMIT SAHAI IFS PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE (PCCF AND HOFF) ASSAM PANJABARI ARANYA BHAWAN GUWAHATI-7810037 3:ROHINI KUMAR DAS AFS DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DHEMAJI DIVISION DHEMAJ Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MR. A K SAHU,MR. L N DIHINGIA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P N GOSWAMI (R-2,3), MR. R R Gogoi (R-2,3) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 06-03-2026 1. This contempt petition is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order dated 30.11.2021, passed in WP(C) No. 6274/2021. 2. This Court under its order dated 30.11.2021, directed the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner, however, the petitioner was superannuated from his service on the same date, i.e., 30.11.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for all the future benefits, order of reinstatement is necessary though the petitioner had retired on 30.11.2021, inasmuch as, in absence of such order of reinstatement, his retirement shall be treated as under suspension. 4. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel representing the respondents/contemnors has placed a copy of the communication dated 17.02.2026 before this Court today, whereby, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department has issued a notification revoking the suspension order of the petitioner dated 30.11.2021 with a further declaration that the petitioner is deemed to be in service on 30.11.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has in the meantime retired, the respondents may consider that the period of suspension till his retirement be treated as “on duty.” 6. This Court cannot pass such an order in contempt petition expanding the scope. However, it is expected that the concerned employer may Page No.# 3/3 consider such prayer of the petitioner, if a representation is filed by him. 7. With the aforesaid, the present contempt petition stands closed. 8. Copy of the communication dated 17.02.2026 is kept on record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant