WAIKHOM PREMCHANDRA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Th. Babita, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) TO redress his grievances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuing a Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a retirement order with effect from 28 -02 -2014 and to allow him to get pensionary and other retiral benefits.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age superannuation with effect from 28 -02 -2014, no retirement order has yet been issued by the Director of Education (S) as a result, the petitioner has been denied to enjoy his pensionary and other retiral benefits. Ms. Th. Babita, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the intentional denial of his rightful claim of enjoying pensionary and retiral benefits is violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the discrimination has been meted out to him by denying pensionary benefits when the same were given to other graduate teachers, similarly situated, who also were transferred from the Ashram Schools to the Schools under the Department of Education (S) resulting in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No affidavit -in -opposition is filed on behalf of the State respondents despite number of opportunities being given to them. However, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate during the course of hearing that since the order dated 25 -09 -2003 had been issued without the approval of the State Government, no retirement order could be issued by the Director of Education (S).