HEISHNAM GHANANJOY SINGH AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

REPORTABLE

Suppl.-1 Item Nos. 1-2

2026:MNHC:234-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL

WP(C) No. 779 of 2026

1. Shri Heishnam Ghananjoy Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o.
Heishnam Subha Singh, a resident of Kyamgei Maning
Leikai, P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District,
Manipur – 795003.
2. Shri Langonjam Martin Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o
Langonjam Nonganjao Singh, a resident of Singjamei
Mathak Thokchom Leikai, Imphal West, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Manipur – 795001.
…Writ petitioners
- Versus -
1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary Ministry of
Information and Electronics, Government of India, Sanchar
Bhawan, New Delhi 110003.
2. The Director General, The National Institute of Electronics
and Information Technology (An Autonomous Scientific
Society of Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology, Government of India, NIELIT Bhawan, Plot No.
3, PSP Pocket, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi 110077.
3. The Registrar, NIELIT, Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology, Government of India, NIELIT
Bhawan, Plot No. 3, PSP Pocket, Sector 8, Dwarka, New
Delhi 110077.
4. The Director, NIELIT, Akampat, Imphal East, Manipur
795001.
…Respondents


WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 1 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

With
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

1. Shri Heishnam Ghananjoy Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o.
Heishnam Subha Singh, a resident of Kyamgei Maning
Leikai, P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District,
Manipur – 795003.
2. Shri Langonjam Martin Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o
Langonjam Nonganjao Singh, a resident of Singjamei
Mathak Thokchom Leikai, Imphal West, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Manipur – 795001.
…Applicants/Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary Ministry of
Information and Electronics, Government of India, Sanchar
Bhawan, New Delhi 110003.
2. The Director General, The National Institute of Electronics
and Information Technology (An Autonomous Scientific
Society of Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology, Government of India, NIELIT Bhawan, Plot No.
3, PSP Pocket, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi 110077.
3. The Registrar, NIELIT, Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology, Government of India, NIELIT
Bhawan, Plot No. 3, PSP Pocket, Sector 8, Dwarka, New
Delhi 110077.
4. The Director, NIELIT, Akampat, Imphal East, Manipur
795001.
…Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

For the petitioners : Ms. G. Pushpa, Advocate along
with Ms. Th. Ranjeeta Devi,
Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. B.R. Sharma, CGC along with
Ms. Pamchui Shimray, Advocate
Date of order : 14-10-2026
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 2 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

ORDER
(ORAL)


(M. Sundar, CJ)
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Full Form/Expansion
Form/other short
references
1. WP Writ Petition
2. MC Miscellaneous Case
3. CAT Central Administrative Tribunal
4. said CAT CAT, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati
5. said judgment and
order
Judgment and order of said CAT
dated 30-05-2025 in O.A. Nos.
042/00027 and 28/2024
6. impugned order Order of said CAT dated 22-09-
2026 in Contempt Petition No. 31 of
2026
7. NIELIT National Institute of Electronics and
Information Technology
8. said report Report of committee constituted by
NIELIT being report dated 18-05-
2026
9. said NIELIT order Office order dated 04-06-2026
bearing reference No.
NIELIT(I)/Admn/CCA/92/15 Vol.II
10. Contempt of Courts Act the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(70 of 1971)
11. Administrative
Tribunals Act
the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 (13 of 1985)
[2] Captioned WP and captioned MC thereat have been presented in
this Court on 10-10-2026 and to be noted, the filing date is 13-10-2026.
[3] Captioned main WP has been filed assailing impugned order
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 3 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

made by said CAT vide which said CAT has given a closure to a contempt
petition filed by writ petitioners (along with two others). In and vide impugned
order, said CAT has come to the conclusion that there is no violation of order
dated 30-05-2025 (said judgment and order of said CAT) and accordingly,
closed the contempt petition discharging the contempt notice contending
that writ petitioners are aggrieved by this order (impugned order) giving
closure to a contempt petition without inflicting any punishment on anyone
captioned WP has been filed primarily assailing impugned order.
[4] Ms. G. Pushpa, learned counsel along with Ms. Th. Ranjeeta,
learned counsel being counsel on record for writ petitioners is before this
Court in the admission Board.
[5] Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that writ petitioner No.
1 possesses a degree being Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Science.
Writ petitioner No. 1 applied for the post of Deputy Director (Scientist-C) and
writ petitioner No. 2 applied for the post of Junior Technical Assistant both
in NIELIT. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that the writ
petitioners were successful qua recruitment, writ petitioner No. 1 was
engaged as Scientist-C cum officer-in-charge at NIELIT, Kakching Study
Centre with effect from 11-01-2024 and writ petitioner No. 2 was engaged
as Assistant (Admn.) on a consolidated monthly remuneration.
[6] Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that when the writ
petitioners were discharging their duties, NIELIT issued a communication
dated 12-01-2024 bearing reference No. NIELIT(I)/Admn/CCA/92/15/Vol.1
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 4 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

to the two writ petitioners and two others saying that the services of the writ
petitioners would be utilized till completion of a project known as NECB 2.0
till 31-01-2024. To put it differently, it was made clear that the services of the
writ petitioners have been utilized for the period from 31-10-2020 to 31-01-
2024 vide 12-01-2024 communication of NIELIT. This communication was
assailed by two writ petitioners (along with two others) in CAT, Guwahati
(said CAT) vide O.A. No. 042/00027 & 28/2024 and after full contest, said
CAT disposed of the application in and vide said judgment and order dated
30-05-2025 inter alia holding that writ petitioners have developed expertise
having worked in NIELIT for considerable time and therefore, this expertise
may be utilized by the organization and for this purpose, said CAT directed
an objective assessment of the need and vacancies against the position for
which the writ petitioners were engaged in various projects of NIELIT. Said
judgment and order of said CAT being judgment and order dated 30-05-
2025 was given legal quietus and the same has attained finality.
[7] It is further submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioners that
pursuant to and obviously post said judgment and order of said CAT, a
committee for making the objective assessment alluded to supra was
constituted and the committee made a report dated 18-05-2026. To be
noted, prior to the report of the committee, the writ petitioners were offered
engagement in other projects of NIELIT in other parts of the country but the
writ petitioners did not take the same.

WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 5 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

[8] This Court deems it appropriate to extract and reproduce the
recommendation part of committee report and scanned reproduction of the
same is as follows:


[9] In afore-referred scenario, NIELIT made the said order dated
04-06-2026, inter alia disbursing to the writ petitioners and two others what
according to NIELIT is admissible arrears in respect of contractual basis
engagement for the period from November, 2020 to January, 2024 and this
was predicated on the said judgment and order of CAT dated 30-05-2025.
[10] In the aforesaid scenario, the writ petitioners along with two others
filed a contempt petition in said CAT being Contempt Petition No. 31 of 2026
inter alia contending that afore-referred 18-05-2026 and 04-06-2026 are not
in conformity with said judgment and order of said CAT and after issuing
notice, the impugned order was made by said CAT giving a closure to
contempt petition, saying that there is no violation of judgment and order of
said CAT and also discharging the contempt notice. As already alluded to
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 6 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

supra, assailing the impugned order, captioned WP was filed by two of the
contempt case petitioners.
[11] Learned counsel for writ petitioners submitted that the report of
committee dated 18-05-2026 is incorrect, it is not an objective assessment
and 04-06-2026 communication does not disburse what is actual arrears as
it has not taken into account increments which are due to the writ petitioners.
To put it differently, writ petitioners are aggrieved by the committee report
dated 18-05-2026 and 04-06-2026 communication and therefore, the
closure of contempt petition vide impugned order inter alia basing the same
on the committee report dated 18-05-2026 and 04-06-2026 communication
is incorrect.
[12] Issue notice.
[13] Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC)
who is present in Court along with Ms. Pamchui Shimray, learned counsel,
accepts notice for all four respondents. Learned CGC, at the outset, pointed
out that closure of a contempt petition cannot be assailed and challenge to
an order in a contempt case can be only when there is punishment.
[14] In the aforesaid scenario, considering the limited scope and
perimeter of the captioned WP and captioned MC, captioned main WP was
taken up and heard out in the admission Board itself with the consent of
learned counsel on both sides and to be noted, learned CGC for
respondents fairly submitted filing affidavit-in-opposition can be dispensed
with and it will suffice if his oral submissions are considered.

WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 7 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

[15] As regards the contention and issue, the entire matter turns on a
very short point and it turns on a very acute angle.
[16] The sheet anchor submission of learned CGC, as already alluded
to elsewhere supra in instant order is, an order made in a contempt petition
cannot be assailed when there is no punishment. This Court has no difficulty
in accepting this submission in the light of plain language in which Section
19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is couched and Hon’ble Supreme Court in
a judgment rendered on 15.05.2026 in Mohammed Hanish vs.
Kadakampally Manoj reported in (2026) SCC OnLine SC 1709 , approved
Chunilal Nanda principle [Midnapore People’s Coop. Bank Ltd. and
others vs. Chunilal Nanda and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399] and
held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is
maintainable only if it is an order or decision imposing punishment for
contempt. To be noted, Chunilal Nanda was rendered by a two-Member
Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court. On facts, Chunilal Nanda is a case
where a person working in a Co-operative Bank was suspended pending
disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent assailed the suspension order and
failure to issue charge-sheet by way of a writ petition in the High Court of
Calcutta. The Calcutta High Court directed the bank to issue charge-sheet,
pay arrears of subsistence allowance and complete the enquiry/disciplinary
proceedings within 3 (three) months. Thereafter a chargesheet was issued,
enquiry was conducted and the delinquent was found guilty and this verdict
and the entire enquiry proceedings were challenged by the delinquent on
the ground of bias. In the second round, the Calcutta High Court set aside
the enquiry proceedings and directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted by an
independent enquiry officer and fixed a timeframe of 4 (four) months.
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 8 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

Though a new enquiry officer was appointed, enquiry was not completed
within the stipulated timeframe, therefore the delinquent initiated contempt
proceedings. In the contempt proceedings before a Hon’ble Single Bench of
the Calcutta High Court, the Court proceeded against the enquiry officer for
breach of its order, directed reinstatement of delinquent, payment of arrears
of salary and revoke suspension of the delinquent. Bank filed intra court
appeal in Calcutta High Court against this order made in the contempt
proceedings but a Division Bench held that the appeal is not maintainable.
Bank carried the matter to Hon’ble Supreme Court and the question as to
whether an order made in contempt proceedings which gives substantial
relief but does not impose punishment on the respondent is appealable.
Addressing this question to itself, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the ratio
that an appeal qua orders in contempt proceedings will lie only against
orders imposing punishment for contempt. It was made clear that orders
initiating contempt proceedings, dropping contempt proceedings or
declining to punish a contemnor (to be noted, in the case at hand, the alleged
contemnors were not punished and the proceedings were given a closure which
is akin to dropping the proceedings) are generally not appealable though in
suitable cases a challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution is
permissible. This Chunilal Nanda principle in effect means that closure of
contempt proceedings cannot be assailed either by way of statutory appeal
under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act or in the High Court, at the
highest, in very suitable cases, a challenge (if at all) can only be under Article
136 of the Constitution which means a challenge only in suitable cases
should be only in Hon’ble Supreme Court. This also means, at the highest,
in a suitable case, challenge to orders in contempt proceedings (where there
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 9 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

is no punishment) can only be under Article 136 of the Constitution in
Hon’ble Supreme Court. This axiomatically means that even in a suitable
case, challenge to orders in contempt proceedings, not being orders of
punishment, can neither be under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act nor
in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As regards
Mohammed Hanish , an order of issue of notice in a contempt petition by a
Single Judge of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, was assailed. It is in this
context that Chunilal Nanda principle was affirmed. Be that as it may,
assuming for a moment, on a demurer, even if the principle that the
captioned WP is a writ of certiorari and not a statutory appeal under Section
19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is considered, the well settled Mirajkar
principle being law laid down by a Nine-Member Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and another ( AIR 1967 SC 1) comes into play. On facts,
Mirajkar is a case where a Hon’ble Single Judge of the Bombay High Court
while hearing a libel case, passed a gag order with regard to deposition of
one particular witness. This gag order made by Hon’ble Single Judge of
Bombay High Court was assailed before a Division Bench by way of writ
petition seeking issue of a writ of certiorari and the question as to whether a
certiorari will lie as against a judicial order arose. The matter travelled to
Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that certiorari will
not lie as against a judicial order. It is not necessary to dilate more on this
aspect as this has been set out by this Court only for the limited purpose of
comprehensively setting out the obtaining legal position.
[17] Reverting to the case at hand, the impugned order being an order
of closure made in a contempt case (without inflicting any punishment on
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 10 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

anyone) cannot be assailed but we are of the considered view that this will
not preclude the writ petitioners from assailing afore-referred committee
report dated 18-05-2026 and communication dated 04-06-2026. The
reasons are threefold, they are (a) the report of the committee is dated
18-05-2026 and the letter from NIELIT is dated 04-06-2026 which means
both are post said judgment and order which is dated 30-05-2025,
proceedings post said judgment and order though pursuant to said judgment
and order give a separate cause of action, (b) the writ petitioners contending
that the report of the committee and letter of NIELIT dated 18-05-2026 and
04-06-2026 respectively are not in compliance with said judgment and order
dated 30-05-2025 is very different from writ petitioners contending that they
are aggrieved by the report and letter dated 18-05-2026 and 04-06-2026
respectively, to put it differently, even if the report and letter are in
compliance qua said judgment and order dated 30-05-2025 (as held vide
the impugned order in the contempt case) as the report pertains to objective
assessment qua writ petitioners and the letter pertains to payment of what
according to NIELIT is admitted arrears for the period from November 2020
to January 2024, the assessment vide the report and the quantum of
payment under cover of the letter can certainly be subjected to challenge,
this is more so as said judgment and order merely directs an assessment to
be made and it does not say anything about what should be the contents or
conclusion of the assessment, the assessment is the discretion and
autonomy of the committee and the said judgment and order merely directs
constitution of committee and assessment, and (c) Section 14 of
Administrative Tribunals Act captioned ‘ Jurisdiction, powers and authority
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 11 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026

of the Central Administrative Tribunal’ is of such amplitude and width that
a challenge to the report of the Committee and the letter will certainly be a
legal drill which will be within the legal perimeter of Section 14 of
Administrative Tribunals Act.
[18] The sequitur of the discussion and dispositive reasoning set out
thus far is, while the captioned WP and captioned MC do not find favour with
this Court and they fail, it will be open to writ petitioners to assail the afore-
referred Committee report and order of NIELIT dated 18-05-2026 and
04.06.2026 respectively, if so advised and if so desired in said CAT by
resorting to Section 14 of Administrative Tribunals Act. If such a scenario
unfurls, though obvious we make it clear that CAT shall consider such
application on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by
dismissal of captioned WP and captioned MC thereat.
[19] Ergo, sequitur is, captioned WP fails and the same is dismissed
albeit with preservation of rights of writ petitioners and observations as
above. As a consequence, captioned MC thereat also perishes with the main
WP and the same is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

Victoria/Sandeep
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2026.10.15
17:22:49 +05'30'

KABORAMBA
M SANDEEP
SINGH
WP(C) No. 779 of 2026 & Page 12 of 12
MC(WP(C)) No. 798 of 2026