Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Manipur High Court

Thingbaijam Bimol Singh vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors on 28 April, 2025

            Digitally signed                                 1
LAIRENM by
         LAIRENMAYUM
AYUM INDRAJEET
INDRAJE SINGH
         Date:
                                                                                     I tem No. 59
ET SINGH 2025.04.28
         16:51:45 +05'30'
                                       I N THE HI GH COURT OF MANI PUR
                                                   AT I MPHAL
                                                 WP( C) No. 850 of 2024

                                Thingbaijam Bimol Singh                      Petitioner
                                                     Vs.
                                State of Manipur & 2 ors.                 Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE AHANTHEM BI MOL SI NGH 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Rinika Maibam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; and Mrs. L. Monomala, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks 2(two) weeks' time for filing rejoinder affidavit.

The learned senior counsel, however, submitted that by an order dated 26.11.2024 issued by the Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.), Government of Manipur, the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The learned senior counsel submitted that even though under FR 53(1) of the FR&SR it is provided that a suspended government servant is entitled to get subsistence allowance, no subsistence allowance has been given to the petitioner by the authorities after his suspension.

The learned senior counsel submitted that as provided under FR 53(1) of the FR&SR, the petitioner is entitled to get his subsistence allowance and as such, a prayer has been made for passing interim order directing the authorities to release the subsistence allowance due payable to the petitioner during the period of his suspension.

Mrs. L. Monomala, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents, submitted that a detailed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 2 has already been filed and that the present writ petition can be decided on merit.

As the learned senior counsel has prayed for granting 2(two) weeks' time for filing rejoinder, let this case be listed again on 29.05.2025.

I n the meantime, it is hereby directed that the respondents should ensure that the subsistence allowance due payable to the petitioner as provided under FR 53(1) of the FR&SR should be released to the petitioner during the period of his suspension as early as possible but not later than 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

JUDGE I ndrajeet