Contempt jurisdiction is limited to evaluating wilful disobedience of a court order; it cannot be used as an appellate forum to re-adjudicate or test the correctness of administrative decisions made in compliance with earlier directions.

O R D E R:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 08.07.2025 and 24.10.2025 in Writ Petition No.16973 of 2019.

2. The case of petitioners is that they are regular Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs) having about 29 years of service; respondent authorities failed to consider their service from the date of their initial appointment in 1996 for the purpose of granting notional seniority and notional increments, though the said service was considered for granting promotion scales and pensionary benefits. It is stated that petitioners repeatedly submitted representations before the authorities, but no relief was granted, compelling them to file Writ Petition No. 31883 of 2017 which was disposed of by order dated 19.09.2017 directing respondents therein to consider the cases of petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur {(1999) 8 SCC 287} and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent rejected the claim of petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.8173/B2/2017 dated 11.10.2018 on the ground that they were not in continuous service from 1996, therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court was not applicable. Challenging the same, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 16973 of 2019.

2.1. It is stated, Writ Petition No. 16973 of 2019 was disposed of by order dated 08.07.2025 observing that petitioners had been rendering continuous service as Secondary Grade Teachers since 1996; their initial appointments were made against 912 posts reserved under G.O.Rt.No.670 dated 06.05.1995; they were granted regular time scale with effect from 11.01.2002 through G.O.Ms.No.1149 dated 01.11.2003; and their services were subsequently regularized with effect from 11.01.2022. It was further observed that G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 18.05.2010 provides for notional consideration of temporary service for promotion scales and pensionary benefits, and petitioners’ service was continuous and against sanctioned posts. Accordingly, this Court held that petitioners’ claim for notional seniority from the date of initial appointment appeared to be supported by the spirit of the said Government Orders.

2.2. It is also stated, in paragraph 6 of the order dated 08.07.2025, this Court directed respondent authorities to examine petitioners’ claim for notional seniority from 1996 ‘in terms of G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 18.05.2010’ and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. According to petitioners, the phrase ‘in terms of G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 18.05.2010’ was inadvertently added in the operative portion though paragraph 5 of the order had clearly held that the claim was supported by the spirit of the Government Orders. In order to correct the inadvertent error, an Application was taken out under the caption ‘For Being Mentioned’ on 23.09.2025. The said Application was allowed by order dated 24.10.2025, whereby the earlier order dated 08.07.2025 was modified and respondent authorities were specifically directed to examine petitioners’ claim for notional seniority from 1996 in the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 18.05.2010 and pass appropriate orders.

2.3. After obtaining the modified order dated 24.10.2025, it is stated, petitioners submitted representations dated 13.11.2025 to all the respondent authorities requesting implementation of the orders and consideration of their claim for notional seniority and notional increments, enclosing copies of the judgment and relevant Government Orders. Despite receipt of the representations and expiry of the time stipulated by this Court, respon