Supreme Court Dismisses SLP on Manipur Government Officer's Pay-Scale Dispute, Grants Liberty for Fresh Challenge.


18 September 2025 Special Leave Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India on 18 September 2025 rejected a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by some government legal officers from Manipur, who had contested the dismissal of a contempt case by the High Court of Manipur. The officers, who were spearheaded by Khoisnam Babulindro Singh, were disgruntled by the grade pay scale awarded to them and had requested re-fixation of their pay and promotional opportunities.

The issue had begun in 2024 when the petitioners had moved the Manipur High Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.177 of 2024. In those proceedings, the Deputy Advocate General had given the assurance to the court that the state government was re-examining the officers' request. Keeping this assurance in view, the Division Bench had disposed of the writ petition in July 2024 with a direction to the government to accelerate the process.

 
 
 
 

Whereupon the officers subsequently complained of non-compliance, they moved contempt proceedings. Yet, the contempt case was shut by the High Court in August 2025 when the government filed an affidavit accompanying its order dated 21 July 2025, which it took to be in compliance with the previous directions. The officers challenged this stand and moved to the Supreme Court through SLP (Civil) No. 26569 of 2025.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale concluded that the state government had actually issued a "speaking order" on 21 July 2025 pursuant to the directions of the High Court. The shutting down of the contempt proceedings could thus not be faulted. Simultaneously, the Court made it clear that if the petitioners were not satisfied with the government order, they could certainly challenge it on merits before a suitable forum. The rejection of the SLP was thus coupled with the freedom to seek new remedies.

The case highlights the Supreme Court's reiterated position that contempt jurisdiction cannot stand in place of merits review. As soon as a government agency issues an order in conformity with a court's directive, even if the affected party is dissatisfied with it, their remedy is to file substantive proceedings, not for wilful disobedience.