Page | 1 Sl. Nos. 11-12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Cont.Cas(C) No. 86 of 2022 Ref:- WP(C) No. 41 of 2020 Ahanthem Abani Singh and 27 others Petitioners Vs. Haobam Rosita and another Respondents Clubbed with Cont. Cas(C) No. 25 of 2023 (Ref: WP(C) No. 369 of 2022) BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR ORDER 08.08.2025 [1] Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel for the complainants/petitioners in both Cont.Case (C) No. 86 of 2022 and Cont.Case (C) No. 25 of 2023. Heard also Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the respondents. [2] This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the complainants/petitioners under the relevant provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for taking action against the respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in WP(C) No. 41 of 2020 dated 11.04.2022. This contempt proceeding has been connected with the proceeding in Cont. Case(C) No. 25 of 2023 and the aforesaid connected contempt case is initiated for willful disobedience of SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.08.11 15:36:25 +05'30' Page | 2 the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in WP(C) No. 369 of 2022 dated 20.09.2022. [2] Whereas, the learned senior counsel Mr. A. Romenkumar for the complainants/petitioners in these contempt proceedings submitted that the respondents/accused have not fully complied with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side as stated above. [3] The learned senior counsel Mr. A. Romenkumar placed the reliance of (2015) 8 SCC 163 in the case of Gauri Shankar PD. Rai vs. Sajal Chakroborty, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and others and referring to para 17 of the said reliance wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court made an observation that “however, in our considered view, the reliance placed upon the judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this Court does support the contention of the complainants for the reason that there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents as they have partially fulfilled the direction given by the Court as well as the High Court with regard to the regularization of the services of the complainants from the year 1987. However, further direction is issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the complainants from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers i.e. form the year 1981. Not complying with the directions issued by this Court from the abovementioned year would amount to deprivation of the legitimate rights of the complainants as determined by the High Court and this Court in the judgments and orders.” Page | 3 [4] The learned senior counsel Mr. A. Romenkumar for the complainants/petitioners in these contempt proceedings has been stoutly submitting by referring at para 17 of the judgment in Gauri Shankar PD. Rai (supra) and wherein it is stated that there is no fully compliance of the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side and on this premises only submitting that it is required to be fully complied. He also referred to the provision of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. However, Article 141 of the Constitution of India reveals that the law declared by the Supreme Court of India shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. But binding in nature, it is in a given factual circumstances on the cases on hand but in this matter, in the reliance just placed by the learned senior counsel, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressed in a several contempt writ petition which is indicating in Clause B, Clause C and Clause D relating to the service law and also regularization scopes, clarified that this was purport in the operative part of the judgment dated 08.11.2011 in Kamal Prasad vs. State of Jharkhad reported in (2012) 1 AIR Jhar R 229 and dated 23.04.2011 in State of Jharkhand vs. Kamal Prasad reported in (2014) 7 SCC 233. Certain reliances have been referred in this judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. [5] On this premises only, the learned senior counsel Mr. A. Romenkumar submitted in these matters that the respondents/accused/authority had not fully complied with. Page | 4 [6] On the contrary, the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry inclusive of the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi for the respondents submitted that the compliance report dated 6th August, 2025 was issued by the Deputy Secretary (Fishery), Government of Manipur and this order dated 6th August, 2025 are consisting in all para No. 1 to para No. 12 but in para 10, it indicates that now, therefore, in supersession of all previous orders in this regard, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to comply with the final Orders dated 11.04.2022, in WP(C) No. 41/2020; and final order dated 20.09.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 369 of 2022; wherein the Governor of Manipur is pleased to count the service of the 32 (thirty-two) petitioners listed at Annexure-I commencing from their initial officiating appointment with effect from 03.02.1986; 28.02.1986; 11.05.1986 and 06.05.1986 till regularization on 13.12.2019 for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 13 of MCS (Pension) Rules of 1977 read with the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2003, subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal (MC(WA) No. 70/2025 (State of Manipur and 2 Ors. -Vs- Ahanthem Abani Singh & 28 Ors.), Writ Appeal (MC(WA) No. 73/2025 (State of Manipur & 2 Ors. -Vs- Khumukcham Robindro Singh & 2 Ors.) etc., pending before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Manipur. And such other consequential legal recourse available to the State Government under law. [7] This paragraph of the order has been referred by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry and so also the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi for the respondents/accused respectively and therefore, keeping Page | 5 in view the orders rendered by the respondents/accused/competent authority i.e. Government of Manipur Secretariat : Fishery Department dated 6th August, 2025 are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to state that the orders which have been rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side which is indicating in detail in office notings of these two contempt proceedings are found to be complied with. [8] Consequently, the aforesaid order is taken on record and the contempt proceedings which have been initiated by the complainants/petitioners against the respondents/accused are hereby closed. CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil