Manipur High Court
Elangbam Ningol Laishram (O) Manileima ... vs State Of Manipur & 3 Ors on 24 February, 2025
LAIREN 1
MAYUM Digitally signed by
LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJ INDRAJEET SINGH
Date: 2025.02.24 I tem No. 1
EET 15:59:49 +05'30'
I N THE HI GH COURT OF MANI PUR
SINGH
AT I MPHAL
WP( C) No. 144 of 2025
Elangbam Ningol Laishram (O) Manileima Devi Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur & 3 ors. Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE AHANTHEM BI MOL SI NGH
24.02.2025
Heard Mr. S. Lokhendro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
I ssue notice, returnable within 4(four) weeks.
Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A., entered appearance and
accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4; and Mr. L.
Gunindro, learned counsel, entered appearance and accepts notice
on behalf of respondent No. 2. Hence, no formal notice is called for.
The case of the petitioner is that a criminal case was pending
against the petitioner and because of that her pension and other
retiral benefits were not released by the authorities even after she
had retired from service from attaining the age of superannuation
w.e.f. 31.12.2020. I t has been submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently, the criminal
case pending against the petitioner and the officials were quashed
and the petitioner was discharged from the liability of the said
criminal case by the Special Judge (PC), Thoubal by judgment &
order dated 12.04.2021 passed in Spl. Trial Case No. 1 of 2018. The
learned counsel further submitted that as no departmental enquiry
or criminal proceedings is pending against the petitioner, the
petitioner is entitled to get her pensionary and other retiral benefits
consequent upon her retirement from service. The learned counsel
further submitted that the authorities had belatedly challenged the
aforesaid judgment & order passed by the Special Judge (PC),
Thoubal by filing a revision along with a condonation application
and that the said condonation application is yet to be heard by this
Court. The learned counsel, strenuously submitted that there is
absolutely no reason either on facts or there is no provision of law
for withholding the pension and the other retiral benefits due
payable to the petitioner. The learned counsel, accordingly, prays
for passing interim order directing the authorities to release at least
her provisional pension as provided in terms of the provision under
Rule 9(4) and Rule 69 of the Pension Rules.
Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A. and Mr. L. Gunindro, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, seek some time to file their
respective counter affidavit.
As prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, list this case again on 11.04.2025.
I n the meantime, the respondents are directed to release the
provisional pension and other retiral benefits due payable to the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2021 as provided under Rule (4) and Rule 69
of the Pension Rule, as early as possible but not later than 3(three)
months from today.
JUDGE
I ndrajeet
