Manipur High Court
Review.Pet./32/2025 of State of Manipur and 4 Ors Vs Thangkholun Kuki and Anr on 16 November 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Review. Pet. No. 32 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Item No.1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Review. Pet. No. 32 of 2025
State of Manipur; & 4 Ors. Petitioners Vs. Thangkholun Kuki; & Anr. Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
17.11.2025
Heard Mr. W. Niranjit, learned Deputy GA appearing for the petitioners, Mr. D Julius Riamei, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
The present review petition has been filed assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 438 of 2019. In the said writ petition, the petitioner made a claim for issuing a direction to the respondents to expedite the process for releasing the arrear family pension due payable to the legal representatives of the deceased Government employee, viz., Late Demkhothang Kuki, father of the writ petitioner, for the period from the KABORA MBAM SAPANA CHANU Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SAPANA CHANU Date: 2025.11.18 14:15:42 +05'30'
date of expiry of the said Government employee, i.e., 28.12.1973 till the date of expiry of the wife of the Government employee (mother of the writ petitioner) i.e., 28.11.2016.
After considering the materials available on record and after hearing the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court allowed the said review petition by issuing a direction to the respondents to expedite the process for payment of the family pension due payable to the legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased Government employee within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order.
In assailing the said order, the Deputy Government Advocate raised only one ground that the authorities have requested the petitioner for producing a decree from the Competent Court declaring the deceased wife of the said Government employee as the legally married wife of the said deceased Government employee. However, as the petitioner has failed to produce the same, the respondents cannot process for payment of the family pension and as such, the direction earlier given by this Court on 24.04.2024 in WP (C) No. 438 of 2019 needs to be reviewed.
On perusal of the record, it is found that the wife of the said aforesaid Government employee had already expired on 28.11.2016 and as such, there is no possibility of obtaining a decree declaring the wife of the said Government employee as the legally married wife.
In my considered view, the demand made by the authorities is unreasonable and not at all possible at this point of time.
Moreover, this Court is also of the considered view that if the authorities have any doubt as to whether the writ petitioner or the other children of the deceased Government employee are the legal representatives of the Government employee, who are entitled to receive family pension, they can verify the same.
In my considered view, no case has been made out by the petitioners in the review petition for interfering with the order passed earlier by this Court and accordingly, the present review petition is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.
JUDGE Sapana