JUDGMENT : 1. Manilal Singh appears in person and files his affidavit, inter alia, stating that an order has been passed on the 19th August, 1992, declaring that the petitioner is to retire from service on 31.8.1992 [A.N.] on superannuation as Joint Secretary. The petitioner points out that in view of the interim order issued by this Court, he must be treated to be functioning as Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly and he cannot be treated as the Joint Secretary. This order, therefore, appears to be prima facie in violation of this Court's order. We, in the circumstances, stay the operation of the aforesaid order bearing No. 5/1/76 (Accts)(5)/3 Pt. dated 19th August, 1992. 2. Manilal Singh also states that Shri R.K. Chinglehsana Singh, Deputy Secretary [F], Manipur Legislative Assembly has not carried out the directions of this Court and has not prepared the bills. Mr. Bhattacharya states that he represents Shri R.K. Chinglensana Singh and claims that, as instructed by Shri Singh, necessary payments are already sanctioned to the petitioner. The petitioner denies it. 3. In our order dated August 4, 1992, we had directed the Chief Secretary, State of Manipur, to see that the directions issued by this Court in regard to the payment of the arrears of the petitioner is promptly obeyed. The Chief Secretary, Shri H.V. Goswami is represented through counsel who submits that the Chief Secretary had written a letter to the Private Secretary to the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly on August 17, 1992, making the necessary request. A copy of that letter is also produced. Learned counsel for the Chief Secretary has placed before us a copy of a note setting out the cause of action permissible to the Chief Secretary in relation to the issue and as to his limitations in dealing with what he considered to be a matter pertaining to the legislative organ of the State. Learned counsel placed before us this note in her endeavour to indicate the limitations on the powers of Chief Secretary in the matter. The note indicates that it was contemplated to make the petitioner, Manilal Singh, himself the Drawing and Disbursing Officer so that the impasse is got over. Learned counsel placed before us this note in her endeavour to indicate the limitations on the powers of Chief Secretary in the matter. The note indicates that it was contemplated to make the petitioner, Manilal Singh, himself the Drawing and Disbursing Officer so that the impasse is got over. Page 1 of the note contains the following: "The only power which can be exercised by the State Government is to allot/transfer the D.D.O. code No. of Assembly Secretariat to Shri I. Manilal Singh, Secretary (LA), till the end of September, 1.992, so as to enable him to prepare and encash his own pay and . allowances etc. Bills as done earlier by F.D. vipe p. 10/cf." But this, apparently, was rendered ineffective by what the note itself indicates at page 2: "An instruction was issued to Treasury copy of which was placed at page 10/cf. to enable Shri Manilal to function as D.D.O. but this has to be superseded by the instruction copy at page 9/cf. as the Speaker desires that Deputy Secretary (F) should be the D.D.O..." 4. Shri Bhattacharya, on the other hand, states that the Speaker had done everything in his authority to see that the payments were made in time. We would like to observe that for the last about three months this impasse is continuing and the impression is being created that the orders of this Court could be flouted. If the Speaker and Chief Secretary had been earnest in obeying the order of this Court the payment would not have remained unpaid. The copy, of the letter dated 20th August, 1992, said to have been sent by Shri R.K. Chinglensana Singh to the petitioner offering the payment is not shown to have been sent to or served on the latter. That letter, a copy of which was shown to us, seems to require the petitioner to go to the Assembly Secretariat, yesterday, just a day before the hearing. Shri Manilal Singh. denies any knowledge of this communication. Events do not indicate that there is anxiety and concern to obey the Constitutional duty and mandate under Article 144 of the Constitution by the concerned. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the different parties, we are of the view that the Chief Secretary Shri H.V. Goswami, Shri R.K. Chinglensana Singh, Deputy Secretary (F), Manipur Legislative Assembly and Dr. Events do not indicate that there is anxiety and concern to obey the Constitutional duty and mandate under Article 144 of the Constitution by the concerned. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the different parties, we are of the view that the Chief Secretary Shri H.V. Goswami, Shri R.K. Chinglensana Singh, Deputy Secretary (F), Manipur Legislative Assembly and Dr. H. Bora Babu Singh should be personally' present in Court. We, accordingly, direct them to be personally present in the Court at the next hearing. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the parties concerned are desirous of filing affidavits explaining their side of the case. They are free to do so but advance copy of the affidavits must be served on the other parties. Mr. Bhattacharya at this stage intervened and contended that no direction for personal appearance should be given against the Speaker without giving him further opportunity to file an affidavit. We are, at this stage, not taking a decision as to whether any person is guilty of contempt or not. We are merely asking the persons to be personally present at the next hearing when the matter shall be clarified by their counsel and by their affidavits. 7. The case is adjourned to the 8th September, 1992. Since the parties whose presence, in court is directed are represented by counsel who are present in Court, no further or separate notice need to go to the parties.