JUDGMENT & ORDER

(ORAL)

[1] Heard Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Ibohal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1

& 2.

None appeared for the respondent No. 3.

[2] The present writ petition has been filed assailing the proceeding/order dated 14.12.2020 passed in Manipur Human Rights Commission Complaint Case No. 132 of 2019 and proceeding/order dated 24.08.2022 passed in Manipur Human Rights Commission Complaint Case No. 57 of 2022.

[3] The case of the petitioner is that the respondents No. 1 & 2 initially approached the Manipur Human Rights Commission by filing the Manipur Human Rights Commission Complaint Case No. 132 of 2019, alleging, inter alia, that even though the respondents No. 1 & 2 and members of the association represented by the said respondents No. 1 & 2 are entitled to pensionary and other retiral benefits, the State Government has ignored their case and their entitled retiral and pensionary benefits has not been given by the State Government thereby depriving their right to livelihood and that the State Government violated their Human Rights. [4] In the complaint, the respondents No. 1 & 2 also prayed for making a recommendation to the State Government for considering the cases of the members of the association, who are retired teachers of the Government Aided Schools, for giving their retiral and pensionary benefits.

[5] After hearing both sides and after considering the documents placed before it, the Manipur Human Rights Commission passed the impugned proceeding/order dated 14.12.2020 by making the following recommendation/order:-

“RECOMMENDATION/ORDER

For the facts, observations, discussions and reasons hereinbefore given this Commission is of the view that complainants including the teachers given in the 1 List at para No. 2 (viii) are entitled to and should therefore, receive and enjoy pension/pensionary benefits including gratuities Complainants/Association members through their President and Secretary are, therefore, directed to apply to the competent government authority/authorities together with the copies of today’s proceedings who should consider and decide by speaking order their claim in the light of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons within a period of 30

(thirty) days from the date of receipt of complainants application by the said authority/authorities, under intimation to this Commission.

Case is accordingly disposed of.

Registry to take steps accordingly.”

[6] When the State Government did not take any positive action pursuant to recommendation/order made by the Manipur Human Rights Commission, the respondents No. 1 & 2 again approached the Manipur Human Rights Commission by filing another Complaint Case No. 57 of 2022 and the said Complaint Case was disposed of by the Commission by an order dated 24.08.2022, thereby redirecting the authorities of the State Government to fully implement the earlier proceeding/order dated 14.12.2020 passed in MHRC Complaint Case No. 132 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible and for early payment of pensions to the complainant and other retired teachers.

Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the said orders.

[7] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner raised only 2 (two) points in assailing the said 2 (two) orders. It has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that under Regulation 9 (viii) of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994, it is provided that the Commission may dismiss in limini complaints which raised issues related to service matter. In appendix-I annexed to the said MHRC (Procedure) Regulation, 1994, service matter is defined under Code No. 1200 which included non-payment of pension/compensation.

The learned Government Advocate strenuously submitted that since regulation 9 (viii) mandates that the commission should dismiss in limini complaints wh