Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7826 (GAU)

HIRANYA BHUYAN v. PREETOM SAIKIA and 2 ORS.

Cont.Cas(C)/103/2017 · 2026-06-09

Arun Dev Choudhury

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010123272017 2026:GAU-AS:8259 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/103/2017 HIRANYA BHUYAN W/O SRI LAKHYA KUMAR BOR GOHAIN, ASSTT. TEACHER OF KHAGARI DIHINGIA LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, DHEMAJI, DIST- and P.S. DHEMAJI, PIN- 787057, ASSAM VERSUS PREETOM SAIKIA and 2 ORS. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELE DEPTT., SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GHY-6, ASSAM 2:SANJIB KR. BHUYAN THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 ASSAM 3:NIRADA DOLEY PEGU THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CUM DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS I/C DHEMAJI DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-7870 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U J SAIKIA, MR.A GOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MS.R SHARMAR-1, MR.B CHOUDHURY(R-2),MS.R BORAH(R- 1),MR.D SAIKIA(R-1)(R-2) Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. A Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SMT Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 21.07.2016, passed in WP(C) No.4046/2008, which was preferred by the petitioner claiming arrears of salary, wherein, it was directed to the authorities to pay the salaries to the petitioners from the month of August, 2007. 3. It is submitted that in the meantime the case of the petitioner was considered and he was accommodated as tutor in the year 2020. 4. Mr. A Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he has been accommodated as tutor, however, he is not satisfied with such a decision and prays the instant contempt petition may be closed with a liberty to him to assail such appointment as tutor as he still claim that he is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petition stands closed with liberty, as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant