SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 12509

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
TAPANJIT KONWAR AND 2 ORS. – Appellant
Versus
JADAV SAIKIA IAS AND 6 ORS. – Respondent
Cont.Cas(C) / 281 / 2025



GAHC010108092025 2025:GAU-AS:14732

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/281/2025

TAPANJIT KONWAR AND 2 ORS.

SON OF LATE PUNYA KONWAR, RESIDENT OF VILL.- BORACHIRA, P.O.-

BORACHIRA, P.S.- DHEMAJI, DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM. PIN - 787057

2: BIDYUT GOGOI

SON OF DIMBESWAR GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILL.- CHOWKHAM GAON

P.O.- GOWAL CHAPARI

P.S.- DHEMAJI

DIST.- DHEMAJI

ASSAM

PIN- 787057.

3: PANKAJ BURAGOHAIN

SON OF PUSPA BURAGOHAIN

RESIDENT OF VILL.- NO. 2 BORACHIRA

P.O.- BORACHIRA

P.S.- DHEMAJI

DIST.- DHEMAJI

ASSAM

PIN - 787057

VERSUS

JADAV SAIKIA, IAS AND 6 ORS.

THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM POWER

(ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, SECRETARIAT, GUWAHATI-781006,

ASSAM.

2:RAKESH KUMAR

IAS

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

BIJULEE BHAWAN

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM.

3:CHIRANJIB ADHIKARY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM.

4:AMRIT DAS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NORTH LAKHIMPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

NORTH LAKHIMPUR -787001 DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

5:SUNIL PEGU THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DHEMAJI ELECTRICAL DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 ASSAM.

6:ANKUR SAIKIA THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DHEMAJI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

DIST.- DHEMAJI PIN-787057 ASSAM.

7:JUGANANDA DUTTA THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER DHEMAJI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

DIST.- DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A GOHAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P N GOSWAMI (R-1 TO 7)), MR BHARGAV DAS(R-1 TO

7),MR. K P PATHAK(R-1 TO 7))

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

Date : 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Gohain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor Nos. 2 to 6.

2. By way of this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relevant rules, the petitioner is drawing the attention of this court to the alleged willful and deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of this court’s judgment and order dated 15.09.2023, whereby the respondent APDCL was directed to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more than 10 years up to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, i.e., 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned posts and as an one time measure their services may be regularized, and in the event they are found not to have worked for more than 10 years up to 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years, in the meantime to consider benefit of providing them the salary at least at a minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee. Paragraph 9, 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder for ready reference: -

“9. In the instant case also as it is the claim of the petitioners that they have been working as contractual employees for more than 10 years and therefore would be entitled to the benefits as indicated in the above extracted portion of the judgment dated 17.01.2017.

10. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL is directed to consider the cases of the individual petitioners and if they are found to have been working for more than 10 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and were working against the sanctioned vacant post, an onetime measure may be made for their regularization. If any of the petitioners are found not to have worked for more than 10 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 10 years in the meantime, the respondents may consider them for a benefit of providing them the salary atleast in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be consistent with the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top