Manipur High Court
Page |3 vs M.H. Khan on 9 April, 2021
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
1. Shri Md. Abdul Sattar, aged about 49 years, S/O
Md. Abdur Rahman, resident of Mayang Imphal
Bengoon Mamang Loukol Litan Makhong, P.O. &
P.S. Mayang Imphal and District Imphal West,
Manipur-795132.
2. Shri Sanasam Shyamananda Mangang, aged
about 52 years, S/O (L) S. Mangol Singh, resident
of Singjamei Thongam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei and District Imphal West, Manipur-
795008.
3. Shri Th. Sushil Kumar Singh, aged about 48 years,
S/O (L) Th. Babu Singh, resident of Keishampat
Junction, P.O., P.S and District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
4. Shri Md. Hatim Ali, aged about 53 years, S/O (L)
Md. Samsir Ali, resident of K.R. Lane, New
Checkon, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat and District
Imphal East, Manipur-795001.
5. Shri Laikhuram Lalitkumar Meitei, aged about 49
years, S/O (L) Laikhuram Mani Meitei, resident of
Khurai Puthiba Leikai, P.O. Lamiong, P.S.
Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur-
795010.
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |2
6. Shri Kh. Shashikhuman, aged about 46 years, S/O
(L) Kh. Likendra Singh, resident of Kongpal
Chingangba Leikai, P.O. & PS. as Porompat and
District Imphal East, Manipur-795005.
7. Shri Md. Salatur Rahman, aged about 50 years,
S/O Md. Muhibur Rahman, resident of Lilong
Haoreibi Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lilong and
District Thoubal, Manipur- 795130.
8. R.K. Noresh, aged about 52 years, S/O (L) R.K.
Ambrish, resident of Yumnam Leikai, Indo-Burma
Road, P.O. & P.S. Imphal and District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
9. Shri Moirangthem Gojelkumar Singh, aged about
52 years, S/O (L) M. Munal Singh, resident of Lairik
Yengbam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Porompat
and District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.
10. Shri Waikhom Sanjoy Singh, aged about 49 years,
S/O (L) W. Nilamani Singh, resident of Singjamei
Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei and District
Imphal West, Manipur-795008.
11. Shri Konsam Subhachandra Singh, aged about 51
years, S/O (L) K. Chandramani Singh, resident of
Khurai Konsam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S.
Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur-
795010.
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |3
12. Shri Thongam Noren Meetei, aged about 46 years,
S/O Th. Nabakumar Singh, resident of Khurai
Kongpal Thongam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong Bazar,
P.S. Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur-
795010.
13. Shri L. Premchand Singh, aged about 43 years,
S/O (L) L. Kulla Singh, resident of Khurai Angom
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai and District
Imphal East, Manipur-795010.
14. Shri Md. Mujibur Rehman, aged about 50 years,
S/O Md. Imam Ali, resident of Heibong Makhong,
P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal and District Thoubal,
Manipur-795132.
...... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. M.H. Khan, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary (RD &
PR), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat Building,
Babupara P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur -795001.
2. H. Balkrisna, MCS, Director of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Manipur, Office of the
Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, Porompat, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795005.
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |4
3. Th. Nandakishore, Chief Engineer, RED, 4th Floor
Secured Office Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
...... Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. BP Sahu, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondents :: Mr. Ng. Jotindra, Advocate.
Date of reserving Judgment
& Order :: 16.03.2021
Date of Judgment &Order :: 09.04.2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners
to take suo motu cognizance of the contempt of Court committed
by the respondents and punish them for their willful disobedience of
the order dated 8.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016.
2. Heard Mr. BP Sahu, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Jotindra Luwang, the learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are all regular
Section Officer Grade-I of the Department of Rural Development
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |5
and Panchayat Raj, Government of Manipur and they have been
serving for decades without getting any promotion in their entire
service career. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C)
No.923 of 2016 with prayer to direct the respondents to promote
them to the post of Assistant Engineer or equivalent and thereafter
Executive Engineer or equivalent of the Department of Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj (RD&PR) or in the newly
established Rural Road Engineering Department. By the order
dated 8.7.2019, W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016 was disposed of with
direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the
letter of proposal sent by the Director, RD&PR dated 20.12.2017
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said
order, by giving fair opportunity to the petitioners. Now the
grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been considered
for promotion and thus, the respondents have violated the order
dated 8.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016. Hence, the
contempt petition.
4. Respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that
the Director, RD&PR had sent a letter dated 20.12.2017 to the
Principal Secretary, RD&PR with a proposal for absorption of 49
Section Officers (23 nos. of Grade-I and 26 nos. of Grade-II) of the
Directorate of RD&PR into the Rural Engineering Department
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |6
during the pendency of the writ petition in which the petitioners were
seeking for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in
Department of RD&PR. It is stated that the writ petition was
disposed on 8.7.2019 directing the first respondent to pass
appropriate orders on the proposal sent by the Director, RD&PR
dated 20.12.2017 within eight weeks. It is further stated that the
promotional avenues cannot be given to the petitioners in Rural
Engineering Department as the same is totally separate entity from
the Directorate of RD&PR and each has its own organizational
structure with certain number of posts created already. As such the
two cannot be merged together in terms of promotion of staff.
According to the respondents, the case of the petitioners has been
examined and rejected their grievance vide order dated 17.8.2020
in compliance of the order dated 8.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C)
No.923 of 2016. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the contempt
petition.
5. The petitioners filed rejoinder stating that the said
compliance order dated 17.8.2020 is not the actual compliance of
the Court's order, but is, in fact, in defiance of the same, in both
letter and spirit. It is stated that no opportunity was given to the
petitioners, on the contrary the petitioners were victimized.
According to the petitioners, there has been no application of mind
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |7
on the part of the respondents while issuing the order dated
17.8.2020.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submitted that W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016 was disposed of on
8.7.2019 directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders
on the letter of proposal sent by the Director, RD&PR dated
20.12.2017 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
the order by giving fair opportunity to the petitioners. He would
submit that the said direction of this Court has not been duly
complied with the first respondent. On the other hand, the
respondents have purportedly in compliance of the order passed in
the said writ petition, issued a back-dated order dated 17.8.2020
intended to be in compliance of the direction of this Court.
7. The learned senior counsel further submitted that no
opportunity was given before passing the order dated 17.8.2020.
According to the learned senior counsel, there has been no
application of mind on the part of the respondents while issuing the
said order which is evident from their submission that staff from
RD&PR cannot be absorbed into as they are two separate entities,
which is in stark contrast to their conduct as staff from RD&PR had
in fact been absorbed in 2016.
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |8
8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
Principal Secretary had absorbed 196 staff of RD&PR in 2016 and
now the same Principal Secretary is submitting that absorption
cannot be done between the two aforesaid departments as they are
two separate entities. This clearly demonstrates their malafide.
9. The learned senior counsel then submitted that the
respondents did not take into consideration the fact that the prayer
of the petitioners if allowed, would have no financial implication as
the said incumbents have already availed the enhanced financial
remuneration and other consequential benefits and that the letter of
the Director, on which order was required to be passed as per the
direction of this Court, has clearly indicated that there would be no
financial implication.
10. The learned counsel next submitted that the acts of
the respondents in issuing the order dated 17.8.2020 without
affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and without
any application of mind with the objective of victimizing the said
incumbents Is in defiance of the direction of this Court dated
8.7.2019. Hence, the respondents are to be punished for their willful
disobedience of the order of this Court dated 8.7.2019. In support,
the learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
Page |9
Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Government
Secondary School Teachers Association v. Ashok Kumar
Sinha and others, (2014) 7 SCC 416.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the case of the petitioners has been examined fairly
by the respondent authorities and rejected vide order dated
17.8.2020 of the Under Secretary, RD&PR in compliance of the
order dated 8.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016. He would
submit that during the issuance of the order dated 17.8.2020, there
was total lockdown in the State and as such curfew were imposed
in the State during the wide spread of pandemic Covid-19.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that only the
Officers not below the rank of Under Secretary were allowed to
attend as per Annexure Clause 11(b) of the notification dated
15.8.2020 issued by the Chief Secretary. Moreover, the contempt
petition was fixed for hearing on 18.8.2020 and however, since
there was no Court sitting during the lockdown for pandemic Covid-
19, the compliance order could not be placed before this Court on
the date fixed on 18.8.2020.
13. The learned counsel next submitted that the
compliance order dated 17.8.2020 was issued in compliance of the
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 10
order dated 8.7.2019 and in the public interest. If the petitioners feel
aggrieved by such order, they are at liberty to approach the
appropriate forum.
14. This Court considered the submissions raised by the
learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the
materials available on record.
15. It appears that on 8.7.2019, this Court passed an order
in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2019 directing the first respondent to pass
appropriate orders on the letter of proposal sent by the Director,
RD&PR dated 20.12.2017 within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of the copy of the order by giving fair opportunity to
the petitioners.
16. It also appears that on 25.7.2019, the petitioners sent
a legal notice through their counsel to the respondents bringing to
the notice of the order dated 8.7.2019 passed in the writ petition
and requested them to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the
letter of the proposal sent by the Director dated 20.12.2017. The
said legal notice states that the petitioners are to be promoted to
the post of Assistant Engineers in the Department of RD&PR within
a period of eight weeks in compliance of the Court's order to avoid
further legal complications and contempt of Court proceedings.
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 11
17. It is to be mentioned that by the order dated 8.7.2019
this Court directed the first respondent to pass orders on the
proposal sent by the Director, RD&PR dated 20.12.2017 within the
specified time and no specific direction was given to the first
respondent to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant
Engineers. Hence, the notice dated 25.7.2019 issued on behalf of
the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners should be promoted
to the post of Assistant Engineers cannot be taken into account and
such notice was issued to the effect that the petitioners should be
promoted is not In accordance with the direction of this Court dated
8.7.2019.
18. Coming to the non-compliance of the order dated
8.7.2019 alleged by the petitioners is concerned, the contempt
petition was filed on 3.10.2019 and after taken on file, the contempt
petition was adjourned from time to time and during the pendency
of the contempt petition, on 17.8.2020, the Under Secretary of
RD&PR issued orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
19. For proper appreciation the order dated 17.8.2020 is
extracted herein under:
"No.6/1/2011-RD&PR(HC): Whereas, the Hon'ble
High Court of Manipur has passed an order dated
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 12
08.07.2019 in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016 thereby
directing the Respondent Authority to pass
appropriate orders on the letter of proposal sent by
the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj,
Manipur dated 20.12.2017 within a period of 8
(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's
order, by giving fair opportunity to the petitioners.
2. Whereas, during the pendency of the Writ
Petition, the Director (RD&PR), Manipur had sent
a letter dated 20.12.2017 to the Principal Secretary
(RD&PR), Government of Manipur with a proposal
for absorption of 49 (forty nine) Section Officers (23
nos. of Grade-I and 26 nos. of Grade-II) of the
Directorate of RD&PR, Manipur to the Rural
Engineering Department, Manipur.
3. Whereas, promotional avenues cannot be given
to the Petitioners in Rural Engineering Department
(RED) as this is totally separate entity from the
Directorate of RD&PR, and each has its own
organizational structure with certain number of
posts created already. And, as such, the two
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 13
cannot be merged together in terms of promotion
of staffs.
4. Whereas, Administrative Department of RD&PR
had written letters dated © 24.01.2018, 07.03.2018
and 21.08.2019 requesting the Chief Engineer
(RED/MSRRDA), Manipur to examine the matter
and furnish comments on the same in order to
avoid any future legal complicacies.
5. Whereas the Chief Engineer, RED/MSRRDA
vide his letter No.6/50/2013-
SRRDA(RED)/Cont.Case(C)/No.166/2019/210,
dated 17th August, 2020 has stated that there is no
vacant post of Assistant Engineer in Rural
Engineering Department for absorption of 49 (forty
nine) Sections officers (23 nos. of Grade-I and 26
nos. of Grade-II) as Assistant Engineer of the
Directorate of RD&PR as proposed by the Director
(RD&PR), Manipur vide his letter dated
20.12.2017. Moreover, the Directorate of RD&PR
and the Rural Engineering Department are
different entities and staffs of one cannot be
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 14
absorbed into another even though the two are
under the same Administrative Department.
6. Now, therefore, the matter has been duly
examined by the official respondents and found to
be devoid of merit, hence, the same is rejected in
compliance of the order dated 08.07.2019 passed
in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016."
20. On a perusal of the order dated 17.8.2020, it is clear
that there is no vacant post of Assistant Engineer in Rural
Engineering Department for absorption of certain Sections as
Assistant Engineers of the Director of RO&PR as proposed by the
Director of RD&PR vide the letter dated 20.12.2017. Further, the
order clearly speaks about the fact that the Directorate of RD&PR
and the Rural Engineering Department are different entities and
staff of one cannot be absorbed into another though the two are the
under the same Administrative Department.
21. It is the contention of the petitioners that while passing
the order dated 17.8.2020, the petitioners were not heard by the
authority and in fact, the said order is a back-dated order. The said
argument of the petitioners cannot be countenanced, as there was
no material produced by the petitioners that the order dated 17 8
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 15
2020 was back-dated order. Since there was no indication in the
order dated 17 8 2020 that the petitioners were heard, it cannot be
said the petitioners were not heard and behind their back, the order
dated 17.8.2020 has been issued.
22. It is the say of the respondents that promotional
avenues cannot be given to the petitioners in Rural Engineering
Department (RED) as this is totally separate entity from the
Directorate of RD&PR, and each has its own organizational
structure with certain number of posts created already. As such, the
two cannot be merged together in terms of promotion of the staff.
The said plea of the respondents has not been rebutted by the
petitioners.
23. On over all perusal of the order dated 17.8.2020, it is
clear the said order has been passed by the Under Secretary of
RD&PR in due compliance with the order dated 8.7.2019 passed in
W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016. If the petitioners are really affected by the
said order dated 17.8.2020, they can very well challenge the same
before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and the merits
of the order dated 17.8.2020 cannot be gone into in this contempt
petition as the limited point involved in the contempt petition is
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 16
whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this
Court dated 8.7.2019.
24. In Ashok Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held:
"24. ...... The Court is supposed to adopt
cautionary approach which would mean that
if there is a substantial compliance with the
directions given in the judgment, this Court
is not supposed to go into the nitty-gritty of
the various measures taken by the
respondents. It is also correct that only if
there is willful and contumacious
disobedience of the orders, that the Court
would take cognizance. Even when there
are two equally consistent possibilities open
to the Court, case of contempt is not made
out. At the same time, it is permissible for
the Court to examine as to whether the
steps taken to purportedly comply with the
directions of the judgment are in furtherance
of its compliance or they tend to defeat the
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 17
very purpose for which the directions were
issued. ......"
25. This Court finds that the decision relied on by the
petitioner in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh (supra) is not
applicable to the case of the petitioners, as the petitioners have
failed to produce any materials to show willful and contumacious
disobedience of the order of this Court dated 08.7.2019 passed In
W.P.(C) No.923 of 2016.
26. It is settled that disobedience of orders of the Court, in
order to amount to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must be willful and proof of mere
disobedience is not sufficient. Where there is no deliberate flouting
of the orders of the Court but a mere misinterpretation of the
executive instructions, it would not be a case of civil contempt.
27. This Court finds that there is no willful disobedience of
the order of this Court dated 8.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.923 of
2016, as the compliance order dated 17.8.2020 stated that the
promotional avenues cannot be given to the petitioners in Rural
Engineering Department (RED) as the same is totally separate
entity from the Directorate of RD&PR and each has its own
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
P a g e | 18
organizational structure with certain number of posts created
already.
28. This Court is of the considered view that the case of
the petitioners has been duly examined by the respondent
authorities and the order dated 17.8.2020 issued by the Under
Secretary of RD&PR is in due compliance of the order dated
8.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2017 and if the petitioners
are feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2020, as stated supra,
they can very well challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
Therefore, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.
29. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
Yumk Digitally signed
by Yumkham
ham Rother
Date: 2021.04.15
Rother 12:54:18 +05'30'
Cont.Case(C) No. 166 of 2019
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2016
