[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Md Shabir Ahmed And 22 Ors vs State Of Manipur And 3 Ors on 24 March, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item nos. 9 & 10
OINAM Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
THOIB OINAM
THOIBA MEITEI
AT IMPHAL
A Date:
2026.03.24
MEITEI
16:34:15
+05'30'
WP(C) No. 223 of 2026 with
MC(WP(C)) No. 243 of 2026
Md Shabir Ahmed and 22 Ors.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
State of Manipur and 3 Ors.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
24.03.2026
[1] Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the petitioners.
[2] The 23 petitioners are the Fair Price Shop Agents/ S.K. Oil Sub-
Dealer for Imphal East District for shop nos. from 89 to 111 in terms of the order
dated 15.07.2024 issued by DC cum Chairperson, Imphal East for a term of
1(one) year from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 and their term has been extended
for another period w.e.f. 01.10.2025 to 31.03.2026. Thereafter, Chairperson of
the Selection & Appointment Committee of FPS Agents/DC, Imphal East issued
a notification dated 10.02.2026 notifying for selection of Fair Price shop agents
cum S.K. Oil Sub-Dealers. In the writ petition, it is prayed not to give effect to
notification dated 10.02.2026 till payment of pending honorarium w.e.f.
01.04.2024.
[3] During the course of hearing, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel
for the petitioners, on instruction submits that the petitioners are not pressing
the main relief prayed for and the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage
by directing the respondents especially Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East and
District Supply Officer, Imphal East to consider the 2(two) representations both
dated 18.03.2026 submitted by the petitioners for payment of honorarium by a
speaking order within a stipulated time. The learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the prayer for disposal of the writ petition by considering
the pending representations both dated 18.03.2026 is not a part of the prayer in
the main petition and he has been especially instructed by the petitioners to
make this alternate oral plea.
[5] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned GA for the State respondents submits
that the petitioners have mixed-up relief prayed for in the writ petition. It is
pointed out that the claim for due honorarium is one thing and it has no
connection to the new notification dated 10.02.2026. However, the learned GA
for the State respondents submits that this Court may pass appropriate order by
considering the alternate oral plea made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners for payment of honorarium without prejudice to the right of the State
and without expressing any opinion on the legality of the notification dated
10.02.2026 issued by the respondent no. 3.
[6] This Court has considered the alternate oral plea made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners and it is of the view that the writ petition may
be disposed of at this stage.
[7] Accordingly, the WP(C) No. 223 of 2026 is disposed of by directing
respondent no. 3, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East/ Chairperson of the
Selection & Appointment Committee of FPS Agents, Imphal East and respondent
no. 4, i.e. District Supply Officer, Imphal East to consider the pending
representations both dated 18.03.2026 submitted by the petitioners for payment
of honorarium by a speaking order as per applicable rules within a period of
2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
[8] It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on
the merit of the case.
[9] The MC(WP(C)) No. 243 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Thoiba
