Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010031262017 2026:GAU-AS:8266 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/363/2017 KABITA PHUKON W/O SRI RAJIB GOGOI R/O WARD NO. 1, DHEMAJI TOWN, P.O. and P.S. DHEMAJI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM VERSUS PRITAM SAIKIA and 4 ORS. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM 2:SRI SANJIB BHUYAN THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -19 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM 3:SMT. NIRADA DOLEY PEGU THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 4:SMT. ANADAR DOLEY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 5:SMT. MOMI DIHINGIA Page No.# 2/3 THE TRASURY OFFICER DHEMAJI P.O. DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B BORAH, MR.P TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S RASULR-2, MR.B GOGOI(R-5),MS.N PHUKAN(R-1),MR.D SAIKIA(Sr.Adv.)(R-2)(R-1),MR.P NAYAK(R-5),MR.M R LASKAR(R-1),MR.N SARKAR(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 1. None appears for the petitioner on call. However, Mr. SMT Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents is present. 2. This contempt petition is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 09.12.2015, passed in WP(C) No.3486/2008. 3. By the aforesaid order, this court held that if the petitioner is still is service and is liable to be paid his salary for the period of work done by him subsequent to July 2007, his arrear and current salary is to be paid. 4. This matter is pending since the year 2017 and the issue relates back to the year 2008. When the matter was listed on 13.12.2024, none appeared for the petitioner and again it was adjourned on 05.05.2025 on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Mr. SMT Chistie, on the other hand submits that state carried out an exercise to verify the status of the petitioners Page No.# 3/3 and other similarly situated persons. After such exercise was carried out, a policy decision was taken to accommodate those teachers who were irregularly appointed as Assistant Teachers/tutors commensurate to the respective qualifications and in most of the cases, the similarly situated persons have accepted such appointment and still continuing in their respective positions. 6. In the present case the petitioner was also accommodated, however, she is not in service as on date. 7. Be that as it may, as none appears for the petitioner on call, the contempt petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant