MANIPUR HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON E. IBEMPISHAK DEVI V/S STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 ORS.

IMPHAL, India, June 9 -- Manipur High Court issued the following order on May 7:

[1] A very unique situation arises in captioned 'miscellaneous case' i.e., MC(WA) No. 14 2026.

[2] The MC applicant served as a Tutor teaching Manipuri in 'Ideal Girls' College'.

[3] MC applicant, after rendering more than 3 (three) decades service in the college turned 60 (sixty) in February, 2013 and according to State, she should have superannuated on 28.02.2013. However, she continued in service for more than a year thereafter until retirement order dated 05.05.2014 was issued. This retirement order was assailed by MC applicant by filing W.P.(C) No. 704 of 2014 and the same came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2014 of Hon'ble Single Bench, setting aside 05.05.2014 retirement order and holding that MC applicant is entitled to serve till 62 (sixtytwo) years. State is on intra Court appeal i.e., captioned W.A. No. 2 of 2018. MC applicant contended before the Hon'ble Single Bench that she is entitled to continue till 65 (sixtyfive) years and therefore MC applicant has also preferred an intra Court appeal i.e., captioned W.A. No. 50 of 2017. To put it differently, aggrieved State and not satisfied MC applicant are on intra Court appeals and the captioned intra Court appeals are in the nature of cross-appeals.

[4] In the hearing today, Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel on record for MC applicant and learned Advocate General for State of Manipur and senior advocate, Mr. Lenin Hijam along with Mr. Athouba Khaidem appearing on behalf of Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are before this Court (Physical Court). Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 is before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform.

[5] Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel for MC applicant contended that interim prayer in the MC application is only for payment of pension as per stated position of State i.e., pensionary benefits as MC applicant would be entitled if she had retired on 28.02.2013 at the age of 60 (sixty) years.

[6] Learned State counsel submitted that the only reason for pension not having been paid is the pendency of cross-appeals i.e., writ appeals.

[7] This Court finds that even if State appeal is allowed and MC applicant's appeal is dismissed, she would be entitled to pension/pensionary benefits as if she had actually retired on 28.02.2013 at the age of 60 (sixty) years.

[8] The MC applicant has been languishing without pension for more than a decade (to be noted, more than 13 years) after having rendered blemishless service for over 3 (three) and a half decades (about 35 years).

[9] In the light of narrative thus far, learned State counsel, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei sought for a short accommodation to get instructions and instruct learned Advocate General with the intention of giving a closure to the captioned MC application in the next listing which will be on Monday i.e., 11.05.2026.

[10] List on 11.05.2026.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.