THOUNAOJAM KHONGNEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Romenkumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Raghumani Singh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

(2.) FOR the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, briefly narrated, the admitted facts are as under:

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, what now emerges is that pursuant to the disposal of the cases by the Apex Court, the petitioner was reinstated under deemed suspension vide office order No. A-2/3/97 MR (Pt-II) dated 04.11.2006 by giving suspension allowance i.e. subsistence allowance, in accordance with the rules from the 1st day of suspension. Further, since the Apex Court vide order dated 27.4.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2289 of 2006 had directed the Single Bench of this Court to re-hear the connected writ petition initiated by the writ petitioner and to record its findings by referring to the facts and evidence, the fresh Departmental Enquiry against the present writ petitioner has not been taken up. Accordingly, the pensionary benefits have not been given to the petitioner pending outcome of the results of the rehearing, as mentioned above. The same has also been stated in para-7 of the counter, which has been quoted above. The question now arises, whether the respondents can deny the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated and kept under suspension and that he retired from service on attaining the date of superannuation w.e.f. 17.12.2005 and except the subsistence allowance, the petitioner has not been paid the other retiral benefits.