AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1]
( 2026:MNHC:171-DB ) IN. 1 to 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 137 of 2026
RK Jibanlata Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o H. Biren Singh, R/o Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
… Petitioner -Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, South Block, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District – Imphal West, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents With MC(WP(C)) No. 142 of 2026
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 137 of 2026) RK Jibanlata Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o H. Biren Singh, R/o Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
… Applicant [2]
-Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, South Block, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District – Imphal West, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents -AND-
IN THE MATTER OF WP(C) NO. 137 OF 2026
RK Jibanlata Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o H. Biren Singh, R/o Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
… Petitioner -Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, South Block, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District – Imphal West, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
[3]
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents With MC(WP(C)) No. 181 of 2026
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 175 of 2026)
Sanasam Shamungou Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o Sanasam Achou Singh, resident of Thoubal Saban Tongba Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138.
Khumanthem Johnev, aged about 60 years, C/o Khumanthem Jugeswor Singh, R/o H. No. 12, Heirangoithong Keibung Oinam Leikai, Canchipur, P.O. – Canchipur & P.S. – Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795003.
Lourembam Sunil Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Lourembam Sanaton, R/o Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. – Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.
… Applicants -Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, South Block, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District – Imphal West, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
[4]
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents -AND-
IN THE MATTER OF WP(C) NO. 175 OF 2026
Sanasam Shamungou Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o Sanasam Achou Singh, resident of Thoubal Saban Tongba Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138.
Khumanthem Johnev, aged about 60 years, C/o Khumanthem Jugeswor Singh, R/o H. No. 12, Heirangoithong Keibung Oinam Leikai, Canchipur, P.O. – Canchipur & P.S. – Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795003.
Lourembam Sunil Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Lourembam Sanaton, R/o Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. – Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.
… Petitioners -Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, South Block, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District – Imphal West, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
[5]
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents With MC(WP(C)) No. 299 of 2025
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 316 of 2025)
Shri Naorem Rameshwar Singh, aged about 60 years old, S/o (Late) N. Shyamkeshwar Singh, a resident of Palace Compound Thangapat Mapal, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795005.
… Applicant -Versus-The High Court of Manipur at Imphal represented by its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, having its office at High Court of Manipur Complex, Mantripukhri, Imphal East, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Official Respondent -AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ref: WP(C) No. 316 of 2025
Shri Naorem Rameshwar Singh, aged about 60 years old, S/o (Late) N. Shyamkeshwar Singh, a resident of Palace Compound Thangapat Mapal, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795005.
… Petitioner -Versus-The High Court of Manipur at Imphal represented by its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, having its office at High Court of Manipur Complex, Mantripukhri, Imphal East, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Official Respondent [6]
With MC(WP(C)) No. 70 of 2025
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 79 of 2025)
The High Court Employee’s Association, Manipur having its office at High Court Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri and P.S. Lamphel, Manipur – 795002 represented by its President namely Sanasam Shamungou Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Sanasam Achou Singh, a resident of Thoubal Saban Tongba Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138.
… Applicant -Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt.
of Manipur, having its office at Secretariat Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, having its office at Secretariat Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Imphal having its office at Mantripukhri, Imphal East, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur.
… Official Respondents -AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ref:- WP(C) No. 79 of 2025 The High Court Employee’s Association, Manipur having its office at High Court Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri and P.S. Lamphel, Manipur – 795002 represented by its President namely Sanasam Shamungou Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Sanasam Achou Singh, a resident of Thoubal Saban Tongba Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138.
… Petitioner [7]
-Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt.
of Manipur, having its office at Secretariat Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, having its office at Secretariat Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Imphal having its office at Mantripukhri, Imphal East, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur.
… Official Respondents With MC(WP(C)) No. 72 of 2026
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 66 of 2026)
RK Jibanlata Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o H. Biren Singh of Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
… Applicant -Versus-
The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, office at Secretariat Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
The Commissioner (Law), Government of Manipur, office at PHQ Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, office at Mantripukhri High Court Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents [8] -AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ref:- WP(C) No. 66 of 2026 RK Jibanlata Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o H. Biren Singh of Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
… Petitioner -Versus-
The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, office at Secretariat Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
The Commissioner (Law), Government of Manipur, office at PHQ Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, office at Mantripukhri High Court Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents With WP(C) No. 175 of 2026
Sanasam Shamungou Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o Sanasam Achou Singh, resident of Thoubal Saban Tongba Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138.
Khumanthem Johnev, aged about 60 years, C/o Khumanthem Jugeswor Singh, R/o H. No. 12, Heirangoithong Keibung Oinam Leikai, Canchipur, P.O. – Canchipur & P.S. – Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795003.
[9]
Lourembam Sunil Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Lourembam Sanaton, R/o Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. – Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.
… Petitioners -Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, South Block, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District – Imphal West, Manipur – 795001.
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. – Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents With WP(C) No. 316 of 2025
Shri Naorem Rameshwar Singh, aged about 60 years old, S/o (Late) N. Shyamkeshwar Singh, a resident of Palace Compound Thangapat Mapal, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795005.
… Petitioner -Versus-The High Court of Manipur at Imphal represented by its Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, having its office at High Court of Manipur Complex, Mantripukhri, Imphal East, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.
With [10] WP(C) No. 66 of 2026
RK Jibanlata Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o H. Biren Singh of Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
… Petitioner
The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, office at Secretariat Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
The Commissioner (Law), Government of Manipur, office at PHQ Mantripukhri, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, office at Mantripukhri High Court Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795002.
… Respondents With WP(C) No. 79 of 2025
The High Court Employee’s Association, Manipur having its office at High Court Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri and P.S. Lamphel, Manipur – 795002 represented by its President namely Sanasam Shamungou Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Sanasam Achou Singh, a resident of Thoubal Saban Tongba Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138.
… Petitioner -Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt.
of Manipur, having its office at Secretariat Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
[11]
The Commissioner (Law), Govt. of Manipur, having its office at Secretariat Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.
The Registrar General, High Court of Manipur, Imphal having its office at Mantripukhri, Imphal East, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur.
… Official Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
| For the petitioners | :: | Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate instructed by Syed Murtaza Ahmed, Advocate in WP(C) No. 316 of 2025 Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate in WP(C) No. 137 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 175 of 2026 Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr. Niraj Paonam, Advocate, Mr. Rendy Maibam, Advocate and assisted by Mr. Sai Kaushal, Advocate; in WP(C) No. 66 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 79 of 2026 |
| For the respondents | :: | Mr. Lenin Hijam, Advocate General, Manipur instructed by Mr. Dimal Kumar Haobam, State counsel, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr. Rustam, Advocate |
| Date of judgment & order | :: | 11-08-2026 |
[12]
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)
[1] This common order will govern and give a closure to captioned 5(five) writ petitions and captioned 5(five) miscellaneous cases thereat.
[2] In the hearing today, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior Advocate instructed by Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 316 of 2025, Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel on record for petitioners WP(C) No. 137 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 175 of 2026, Mr. Rendy Maibam, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner are before this Court (physical Court).
Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Niraj Paonam, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 66 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 79 of 2026 and assisted by Mr. Sai Kaushal, learned counsel is before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform.
Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General, Manipur instructed by Mr. Dimal Kumar Haobam, learned State counsel and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Rustam, learned counsel on record for the High Court of Manipur are before this Court (physical Court)
[3] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
[13]
| Sl. No. | Abbreviation/ Short Form/other short references | Full Form / Expansion |
| 1. | WPs | Writ Petitions |
| 2. | MCs | Miscellaneous Cases |
| 3. | said Rules | The High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020 |
[4] There were elaborate and detailed hearings in previous listings but there was an interesting turn of events in the hearing today, qua trajectory of the matter (about which there will be allusion elsewhere infra in this order) and that is leading to closure of the captioned WPs and MCs. [5] Instant common order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings/ orders made by this court in the listings on 27-04-2026 and 31-07-2026, which read as follows:
‘27.04.2026
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings, more particularly, proceedings made in the listings on 26.02.2026 and 06.04.2026 which read as follows:
‘26.02.2026 [1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 18.02.2026 which reads as follows:
‘18.02.2026.
[14]
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing yesterday i.e., 17.02.2026 which reads as follows:
‘17.02.2026.
[1] In the captioned cluster, there are four ‘Writ Petitions’ (‘WPs’ in plural and ‘WP' in singular for the sake of convenience), the details of which are as follows:
(i)W.P. (C) No. 79 of 2025 (I WP)
(ii)W.P. (C) No. 316 of 2025 (II WP)
(iii)W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2026 (III WP)
(iv)W.P. (C) No. 137 of 2026 (IV WP)
[2] As regards I & II WPs, Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners, led by learned senior counsel, Mr. HS Paonam in I WP and learned senior counsel, Mr. N. Jotendro in II WP, in III WP, Mr. Niraj B Paonam, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner (on the Video Conferencing platform) and as regards IV WP, Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel on record for petitioner (in the physical Court), are before this Court.
[3] All the afore-referred learned counsel and learned senior counsel submit in unison that factual matrix qua the aforesaid four WPs are inextricably intertwined and the issues are dovetailed.
[4] In III WP i.e., W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2026 (along with MC thereat) a Division Bench of this Court presided by one of us (Chief Justice) made an order dated 29.01.2026 and the same reads as follows:
‘29.01.2026.
[1] Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. Niraj B Paonam, learned counsel on record for petitioner is before this Court on the Video Conferencing platform.
[15]
[2] It is submitted that the captioned matter is dovetailed with WP(C)No.79 of 2025 and the same is pending in this Court. It is also submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has made an order dated 27.01.2026 in WP(C)No. 81 of 2026 and the counsel on record for writ petitioner requests for time to produce that order.
[3] Be that as it may, as it prima facie appears that there may be overlap of exercise of powers by Chief Justice on the administrative side and the judicial side, let the captioned matter be listed before a specially constituted Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice. A. Guneshwar Sharma tomorrow i.e, 30.01.2026.
[4] Let WP(C) No. 79 of 2025 also be listed before the same specially constituted Division Bench tomorrow i.e., 30.01.2026.
[5] To be noted, considering the exigency of time and also taking into account that the retirement is due on 31.01.2026, this order is being made on the judicial side by making an exception.
[6] List both matters before specially constituted Division Bench tomorrow i.e., 30.01.2026.’
Today, Mr. Niraj B Paonam, learned counsel on record for petitioner in III WP, submits that he could not produce the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.01.2026 made in W.P. (C) No. 81 of 2026 on 29.01.2026 as the same had not been uploaded and the copy had not been made available to the counsel on record on that day (29.01.2026). Be that as it may, learned counsel also expressed regret and submitted that he was unable to apprise this Court (through senior counsel appearing for him) of the contents of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.01.2026. The order
[16]
of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.01.2026 made in W.P. (C) No. 81 of 2026 has since been placed before this Court and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
[5] Owing to the afore-referred order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as a matter of judicial discipline and institutional propriety in the hierarchy of Courts, afore-referred 29.01.2026 order made in W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2026 along with MC thereat is recalled with the consent of all the aforementioned learned counsel and
[17]
learned senior counsel. (To be noted, it is recalled as Hon’ble Supreme Court has requested Chief Justice of this High Court to take up and decide the writ petition) [6] Consequently, order dated 30.01.2026 made by Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma and other order/s (if any) post 29.01.2026 also stand/s subsumed by the afore-referred recall order. To be noted, this means that this 30.01.2026 also now stands recalled.
[7] The sequitur is, captioned four WPs along with MCs thereat will be taken up together by a Division Bench presided by Chief Justice (pursuant to order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.01.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 81 of 2026)
[8] List all four captioned/afore-referred WPs along with MCs thereat tomorrow (18.02.2026) before the Division Bench presided by Chief Justice under the same cause list caption, i.e., ‘AS PER HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ORDER’
[9] List on 18.02.2026’
[2] The same set of learned counsel and learned senior counsel are before this Court today (to be noted, paragraph 2 of earlier proceedings dated 17.02.2026 captures details in this regard).
[3] As regards I and II WPs, notice has already been issued and all respondents have entered appearance. To be noted, broadly stated there are two set of respondents, one is State and the other is Manipur High Court. As regards State, Ms. Thanyonmi Keishing, learned State counsel and as regards Manipur High Court, W. Jamon, learned counsel led by Mr. KH. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel are before us. [4] As the central issue is common in all 4(four) WPs, issue notice to respondents in III and IV WPs also. In III WP, Ms. Thanyonmi Keishing, learned State counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. W. Jamon, learned counsel
[18]
accepts notice for respondent No.3. In IV WP, Ms. Thanyonmi Keishing, learned State counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. W. Jamon, learned Standing counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
[5] This Court is informed that pleadings are complete in I WP. As regards High Court counsel, senior counsel Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, on instructions, submits that the affidavit-in-opposition filed in I WP can be treated as affidavit-in-opposition in the other 3(three) WPs also and he is ready to advance arguments.
[6] As regards the learned State counsel, learned State counsel submits that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in I WP and the same can now treated as affidavit-in-opposition in II, III & IV WPs also. However, learned State counsel submits that learned Attorney General for India, Mr. R. Venkataramani would be appearing for the State and requests for listing on 26.02.2026. To be noted, main WP will be heard out in the next listing.
[7] Inter-alia owing to letter dated 09.05.2025 bearing reference No. L-MISC-5/12/2023-SEC-LAW in WP(C) No.79 of 2025, learned State counsel shall keep the entire records pertaining to the captioned matters ready for perusal and the file/s shall be kept ready after flagging the documents/pages to which State counsel wants to draw the attention of this Court.
[8] Mr. Syed Murtaza, learned counsel on record for petitioner submits that as regards II WP i.e., WP(C) No.316 of 2025 some compilation errors have crept in and he seeks leave of this Court to replace the present paper book with a new paper book with correct pagination or include the missing pages and set the paper book in order. Permission/leave in this regard granted and Registry is directed to permit learned counsel to do the needful in this regard.
[9] List on 26.02.2026.’
[2] To be noted, today, WP(C) No. 175 of 2026 along with MC thereat has been tagged with the captioned bunch matters.
[19]
[3] Mr. Elangbam Premjit Singh, learned counsel for petitioner in WP(C) No. 137 of 2026, Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner in WP(C) No. 316 of 2025 and WP(C) No. 79 of 2025 and Mr. M. Rendy, learned counsel for petitioner in WP(C) No. 66 of 2026 and Mr. M. Rustam, learned counsel on record for High Court led by Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior advocate are before this Court. As regards State respondents, Mr. O. Ratan Kumar, learned State Counsel is before us in the physical court and adverting to earlier proceedings dated 18.02.2026, more particularly paragraph 6 thereat, he submits that learned Attorney General for India would not be appearing in this matter for State and instead, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) who is before us on the VC (Video Conferencing) platform would be appearing. Today, Mr. Piyush Beriwal, learned counsel who is before us on the VC platform submits that ASG is in difficulty and requests for an adjournment/ rescheduling.
[4] Though this Court was inclined to take up the matter in the ensuing fortnight, Mr. Piyush Beriwal, learned counsel made a specific request for listing in April citing difficulty for learned ASG. In the light of such specific request citing difficulty for learned Solicitor, let these matters stand over to 06.04.2026.
[5] In the interregnum, the parties shall complete pleadings.
[6] List on 06.04.2026.’
‘06.04.2026 Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel appeared Physically before this court on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 127 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 175 of 2026; Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, learned counsel appeared Physically before this court on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 316 of 2025; and Mr. Niraj P., learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 79 of 2025 and WP(C) No. 66 of 2026 through VC platform.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Addl. Solicitor General assisted by Mr. O. Ratankumar, learned counsel on behalf of the State respondents through VC platform; and Mr. M. Rustam,
[20]
learned counsel appeared Physically before this court on behalf of the High Court of Manipur.
The learned Addl. Solicitor General prays for fixing these cases in the 1st week of June, 2026 so that he can appeared physically before this Court.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that they may be allowed to start their arguments.
In view of the submission made above, let these cases be listed again on 27.04.2026.’
[2] Today, Mr. Niraj Paonam, learned counsel led by Mr. K. Prameshwar, learned senior advocate for petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 79 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No. 66 of 2025 and Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 127 of 2026 and W.P.(C) No. 175 of 2026 are before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform.
[3] Mr. Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 316 of 2025 is before this Court (Physical Court).
[4] As regards respondents, Mr. O. Ratankumar, learned State counsel (State of Manipur) and Mr. M. Rustam, learned counsel for High Court of Manipur are before this Court (Physical Court).
[5] Learned counsel for writ petitioners and learned senior counsel for one of the counsel on record for writ petitioners are ready to commence submissions but Mr. O. Ratankumar, learned State counsel requests for a short accommodation citing personal inconvenience/difficulty for learned ASG (Additional Solicitor General), Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee who is leading him.
[6] This Court has pointed out to learned State counsel that (a) the matter is pursuant to orders made on judicial side by Hon’ble Supreme Court being order dated 27.01.2026 and (b) time left for the writ petitioners is limited.
[7] Learned State counsel submitted that rescheduling of captioned matter is sought only owing to personal inconvenience of learned ASG and he further submitted that next listing can be treated as peremptory.
[21]
[8] As regards next listing date, all afore-referred learned counsel submitted that it can be 22.05.2026.
[9] List under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘AS PER HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ORDER’ on 22.05.2026.
[10] List on 22.05.2026.
‘31.07.2026
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings.
[2] In the hearing today, Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners in WP(C)Nos. 137 & 175 of 2026, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. Abdul Baqee Khan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in WP(C)No.316 of 2025, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General (AG) instructed by Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned State counsel and Mr. M. Rustam, learned counsel on record for the High Court of Manipur are before this Court (physical Court). Mr. Niraj B. Paonam, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners in WP(C)Nos. 66 of 2026 & 79 of 2025 is before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform.
[3] Adverting to earlier proceedings made in the previous listings, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned AG for State of Manipur submitted that there is an assent from department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Manipur qua proposal for exchange of thoughts between two constitutional functionaries in terms of paragraph 57 of ‘the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association -vs- Union of India & Anr.’ reported in (1989) 4 SCC 187. As the matter is under active consideration of this Court, we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage. However, with regard to learned AG taking up the matter, he sought for a short accommodation.
[4] Mr. Niraj Paonam, learned counsel who is before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform also requested for a short accommodation citing personal inconvenience/difficulty for senior advocate, Mr. K. Parameshwar who is leading him (today).
[5] This Court pointed out that Hon’ble Supreme Court in and vide judicial order dated 27.01.2026 has requested the Chief Justice of this Court (High Court of Manipur) to take up and decide the writ petition at the earliest. Responding to this, all the learned counsel
[22]
before this Court submitted that if the matter is kept on 11.08.2026 at 2:00 pm, that listing can be treated as peremptory and the matter can be heard out if no conclusive response comes forth from learned AG.
[6] Captioned matter is adjourned but with a caveat that next listing shall be treated as peremptory.
[7] List under the same cause list caption i.e., ‘AS PER HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ORDER PART HEARD-HEARING’ at 2:00 pm before this Division Bench.
[8] List on 11.08.2026.’
[6] To be noted, both the afore-referred proceedings i.e., dated 27-04-2026 and 31-07-2026 open with the expression ‘Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings’ but this Court refrains from setting out all the earlier proceedings and burdening this order with the same for two reasons. First reason is, the other (earlier) proceedings may not be of immense significance qua crux and gravamen of instant order. The second reason is, the other (earlier) proceedings are more in the nature of proceedings capturing the trajectory the matter has taken.
[7] The sheet anchor submission on the side of the protagonist of the captioned WPs and MCs thereat is, what is being described as 3Ds i.e., Deference, Dialogue and Detailed Reasoning. As regards State, learned Advocate General i.e., first Law Officer very fairly submitted that there can be no disputation or contestation as regards the 3Ds principle as [23]
that is the obtaining position qua Article 229. Furthering his submission in this direction, learned Advocate General placed before this Court a communication dated 06-08-2026 bearing Ref:. 5/7/2025-Case/L-(HC) and the scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
[24]
[8] All the learned counsel and learned senior counsel before this court were favoured with copies of the afore-referred communication and all of them have the benefit of perusing the afore-referred communication. [9] As the afore-referred communication itself refers to Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association principle with specificity (to be noted, the communication refers to paragraph 57 of Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & anr., reported in (1989) 4 SCC 187), this court refrains from dilating more on the same and deems it appropriate to write that it will suffice to read this Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association principle in the light of prior Gurumoorthy and subsequent Rameshchandra principles. To be noted, Gurumoorthy principle is vide (1971) 2 SCC 137 and Rameschandra principle is vide (2020) 20 SCC 163.
[10] Reverting to the institutional consultation qua constitutional functionaries referred to in the afore-referred letter, drawing inspiration from the procedure put in place by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases laws, particularly by respectfully drawing inspiration from the procedure put in place in High Court Employees Welfare Association, Calcutta & ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & ors. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 334, with consensus qua all afore-referred counsel and senior [25] counsel before this court and in continuation of afore-referred 06-08-2026 letter, following Committees are constituted:
| Committee A | |||
| 1. | Hon’ble Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, Judge, High Court of Manipur. | ||
| 2. | Shri Ojesh Mutum, Registrar General, High Court of Manipur | ||
| 3. | Smt. Monalisa Maibam, Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Manipur. | ||
| (As regards Nos. 2 and 3, if there is any change in the incumbent/s, it shall be read and operated as ex-officio) | |||
| Committee B | |||
| 1. | Dr. Puneet Kumar Goel, Chief Secretary, Manipur | ||
| 2. | Shri Arun Kumar Sinha, Principal Secretary (Law) | ||
| 2. | Shri Ashok Kumar, Commissioner (Home) | ||
| 4. | Shri Sumant Singh, Secretary to Hon’ble Governor. | ||
| {To be noted, this court is informed that Chief Secretary is also Administrative Secretary (Finance)} | |||
| (if there is any change in the incumbent/s, it shall be read and operated as ex-officio) | |||
[11] The afore-referred Committees shall have institutional consultation keeping in mind the principles and ratios laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions in this regard and conclude the exercise as expeditiously as the official business of all concerned would permit but in any event within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 08-09-2026. It is made clear that as regards Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, [26]
Judge, High Court of Manipur alone, this time frame is only a polite request, it is not a directive and shall never be so construed for any purpose.
[12] As this court has put in place the afore-referred Committees by respectfully drawing inspiration from High Court Employees Welfare Association, Calcutta, it is deemed appropriate to write about this case law. On facts, Government of West Bengal constituted 4th Pay Commission in 1995 and the terms of reference included that of employees of Calcutta High Court. The then Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court constituted a five Judge Committee and acting on the recommendations of the Committee and the draft rules suggested by the Committee exercised its powers under Article 229. However, when the rules went to State Government for approval, State Government objected to the same inter alia on the ground that clause (2) of Article 229 does not cover creation of new post and also cited financial burden, inequality vis-a-vis State Government employees and administrative difficulties. Aggrieved, High Court Employees Association approach Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 and in the Article 32 petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a Special Pay Commission consisting of Judges and administrative officials shall be constituted by the Chief Justice to work out an appropriate formula with regard to pay scales to be fixed for High Court Employees and fixed a timeframe of six months. This order is reported in (2004) 1 SCC 334 which has been adverted and alluded to supra in this order. Thereafter, the [27]
Committee met, had detailed deliberation/ discussion and all pending issues were sorted out unanimously and the recommendations were placed before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Recording this position and noticing that all issues have been sorted out, the Article 32 writ petition was given a closure by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09-01-2007 and this order is reported in (2007) 3 SCC 637. To be noted as the matter has been made by a Division Bench presided by Chief Justice, the second seniormost Judge of this Court heads the Committee.
[13] Post afore-referred dialogue proceedings shall be drawn up with detailed reasoning. If the writ petitioner/s and/ or any other person concerned with the matter is either not satisfied or aggrieved by such proceedings, it will be open to the writ petitioners and/ or any other person not satisfied or aggrieved to approach this court again inter alia assailing the proceedings and if such a scenario unfurls, it is made clear that all the rights and contentions of both sides {including contentions raised in captioned WPs and MCs} are left open for being canvassed and the same shall be dealt with on its own merit and in accordance with law untrammelled by closure of captioned WPs and MCs vide instant order. [14] Learned Advocate General while not entering upon disputation and contestation and joining the consensus regarding the stated position and the course that is being adopted, with regard to the timeframe alone requested for a longer timeframe but this court took into account inter alia [28] the obtaining position that the first communication from this court is dated 30-08-2024 and afore-referred 06-08-2026 communication itself has been sent nearly two years later, pending captioned writ petitions and MCs thereat, that too pursuant to proceedings made in the last listing on 31-07-2026 and also noticing that time is running out for some of the writ petitioners deems it appropriate to write that four weeks is appropriate. [15] Captioned five WPs and five MCs are disposed of as closed albeit with observations, directions and preservation of rights as above. There shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Devananda FR/ NFR
P.S. I: Upload forthwith P.S. II: All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter alia as the same is QR coded.
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
DEVANANDA SINGH
SINGH +05'30'