JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The Secretary Education(S), Government of Manipur, issued an order dated 21st September, 2007, canceling the earlier order extending the term of the post of 146 Hindi Graduate Teachers up to 28.2.2006 because 100 posts of Hindi Graduate Teachers created during the 9th plan, were already abolished on 7.2.2002. Thus, on review of the matter, the order extending the term of 146 posts were cancelled and treated as non-existent w.e.f. 1.4.2002. Earlier in WP(C) No. 1356 of 2001 and WP(C) No. 991 of 2006, the petitioner sought a direction for appointment against the said 146 posts of Hindi Graduate Teacher but the same was dismissed by this Court on 30.11.2007. Thereafter, the writ appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 15.1.2008 in WA No. 3 of 2008. 3. The argument of the petitioner in this contempt petition is that there was an interim order dated 1.10.2001 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1356 of 2001, prohibiting the State Government from abolishing the aforesaid 146 posts of Hindi Graduate Teacher. The aforesaid order dated 1.10.2001 reads as follows - List it after long Puja Vacation so as to enable the respondents to fife counter affidavit as prayed for. In the meantime the posts in question shall not be abolished by the respondents. 4. The aforesaid writ petition in which the interim order was passed, came to be disposed of only on 30.11.2007 and, therefore, the petitioner submits that by issuing the order dated 21.9.2007, a contempt of court has been committed by the respondent, in view of the prohibitory order dated 1.10.2001. 5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, Secretary Education(S), Government of Manipur, wherein a plea was taken that counter affidavit of the respondent was filed on 23.7.2002 and, therefore, the interim order could operate only from 1.10.2001 to 23.7.2002 and it did not operate beyond 23.7.2002 and as such the committing of contempt of court does not arise while issuing the aforesaid abolition order dated 21.9.2007. 6. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that court is to decide the interpretation of the order dated 1.10.2001 which has an outer limit of time for operation inasmuch as the word "in the meantime" appearing in the aforesaid interim order is referable to such time till the Puja Vacation would continue and once the Puja Vacation was over and the matter was listed before regular cause list, the order dated 1.10.2001 would stop operating. Similar nature of order has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Luis Proto Barbosa v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 1812 wherein an order came to be interpreted which reads as follows - "List the matter on 30th October, 1990. In the meantime, status quo as on today will continue." The Apex Court held that outer terminal point of the operation of the restraint, when the expression "in the meantime" is used is arguable. That expression takes its colour from the context. They are "words of relation and refer not only to a time end" and, therefore, the status quo is to end on 30th October, 1990, i.e., outer terminal point of the aforesaid order. In the present case, the Puja Vacation continued up to the end of October and by the beginning of November 2002 normal puja vacation would not continue and therefore, the operation of the order dated 1.10.2001 will be limited during the period of puja vacation and the expression "in the meantime" is referable to the terminal point of time and the abolition of the order was issued much after the operation of the interim order dated 1.10.2001 ceased to exist any further. 7. In view of the above, no case of contempt is made out. The interim order did not exist as the relevant point of time of the order dated 21.9.2007 was issued by the government. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed