IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the petitioner's right to timely pension and retirement benefits, and the State Government's obligation to ensure prompt payment of retirement dues as established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

[1] Heard Shri S. Thoi Thoi Meitei, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Th. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondents while Shri Moses Pao, learned Advocate appears for the Accountant General, Manipur.

[2] By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to grant him his pension and retirement benefits with @ 10% interest from the date of his retirement and also to direct the respondents to fix the responsibility for not granting them to him. In addition thereto, a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment and order dated 07-10-2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.563 of 2016.

[3.1] According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as the Assistant Teacher on regular basis vide order dated 27-01-1972 of the DEO, Directorate of Education(S), Manipur and he continued to work in that capacity till 28-02-1973 when he was sent on deputation to District Council (N), Tadubi, vide order dated 27-08-1973.

[3.2] The petitioner, on deputation, started discharging his duties as a Assistant teacher at Liyai Primary High School under the Autonomous District Council, Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur (hereinafter referred to as “the ADC, Senapati”) and had been rendering his service sincerely and faithfully without any stigma till the issuance of a conditional termination order dated 29-02-2008 by the Chief Executive Officer, ADC, Senapati, by which he was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 29-09-2008(A/N) subject to the approval of the Director of Education(s), Government of Manipur.

[3.3] In order to grant the approval by the Director of Education (S), Manipur, he approached him and other concerned authorities by submitting representation after representation so that he could be formally allowed to retire from service and he could enjoy his pension and retiral benefits. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition being WP(C) No.763 of 2016 which was disposed of on 07-10-2016 with the direction that the State Respondents should pass appropriate orders so that the petitioner could enjoy his pension and retiral benefits within a period of two months therefrom.

[3.4] Since the State respondents failed to comply with this Court’s order dated 07-10-2016, a contempt case being Contempt Petition (C) No.38 of 2017 came to be filed by the petitioner. Surprisingly, during the pendency of the said contempt case, the State respondents preferred an appeal being WA No.31 of 2018, along with MC (W.A) No.45 of 2018, challenging the order dated 07-10-2016. After having heard the parties, this Court dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 13-12-2018.

[3.5] In compliance with this Court’s order dated 07-10-2016, the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 11-02-2019 allowing the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 29-02-2008 (A.N). After the said order being issued, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities/ respondents to release his pension and retirement benefits by way of a representation dated 29-03-2019. However, the State respondent failed to take any positive action thereon.

[3.6] Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that the respondents being the “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. In a welfare State like India which is governed by the rule of Law, it is the duty of the respondents to follow and obey the rule of law and their inaction depriving the petitioner from enjoyin