Manipur High Court
Shri Salam Chandra Singh & 11 Ors vs Shri Paulunthang Vaiphei on 5 May, 2022
Item No. 42-44
Cont. Cas(C) No. 92 of 2020 with
MC(Cont. Cas(C) No. 98 of 2021 with
MC(Cont. Cas (C)) No. 99 of 2021
Shri Salam Chandra Singh & 11 Ors ....Petitioners
-Versus-
Shri Paulunthang Vaiphei, Principal Secretary & Anr
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
05.05.2022
Heard Mr. R.K Milan Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for
the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-
compliance of this Court's Judgment and Order dated 17-12-2018
passed in WP(C) No. 738 of 2017.
The relevant portion of the Judgment and Order dated
17-12-2018 passed in WP(C) No. 738 of 2017 reads as under:
"[10] In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed
of with the direction that the respondents shall examine as to whether the
present petitioners are similarly situated with the Muster Roll employees
of the IFC Department who have been regularized as aforesaid, or not and
if yes, the benefit of regularization shall be extended to the present
petitioners."
The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed two separate
misc cases namely, MC(Cont. Cas (C)) No. 98 of 2021 and
MC(Cont.Cas (C)) No. 99 of 2021 enclosing the Order dated 26th
February, 2021 passed by the Under Secretary (Works),
Government of Manipur wherein, para No. 7 of the order reads as
under :
"7. Now, therefore, in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's
order dated 17-12-2018 passed in WP(C) No. 738 of 2017 (Shri Salam
Chandra Singh & Ors. -Vs- The State of Manipur & Anr) and order dated
29-11-2019 passed in WP(C) No. 963 of 2019 (Shri Salam Chandra Singh &
Ors. -Vs- The State of Manipur & Anr), the Governor of Manipur is pleased
to examine and has decided that the cases of the present petitioners are
not similarly situated with the Muster Roll employees of the IFC
Department who have been regularized as mentioned in para - 6 above.
Hence, as of now, the conversion of the present 12 (twelve) petitioners to
the Work Charged Establishment cannot be accepted."
After a consideration of the Order dated 26th February,
2021, this Court is of the considered opinion that substantial
compliance has been made by the respondents to the Judgment
and Order dated 17-12-2018 passed in WP(C) No. 738 of 2017.
Mr. R.K Milan, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the respondents have not properly examined the case
of the petitioners and the Order dated 26th February, 2021 has
been passed purely to mislead this Court and therefore, this Court
is required to verify the records as to whether the respondents
have duly considered the case of the petitioners.
This Court is under contempt jurisdiction and
therefore, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is not maintainable and accordingly rejected. However,
liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 26th
February, 2021 before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
Contempt petition is closed along with the two misc
cases.
JUDGE
kim
CHONGNUN Digitally signed by
CHONGNUNKIM GANGTE
KIM GANGTE Date: 2022.05.06 10:48:45
+05'30'
