P a g e | 1 Item No. 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Review.Pet. No. 11 of 2025 State of Manipur and 4 Others …Petitioners - Versus - Leishangthem Joychandra Singh and another …Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR O R D E R 24.02.2025 Mr. S. Nepolean, learned senior GA assisted by Ms. RK Emily, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appears for the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that, in view of the common judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 524 of 2018 (Shri T. Tungzalian Vs. State of Manipur & Ors.) and Review Petitions No. 17, 33, 34, 35 of 2017 and review application filed by the Department to review the order dated 21.10.2022, the said review petition came to be dismissed and thereafter, the Government convened a meeting on 25.01.2024 and the following decision was taken :- “After threadbare discussion, the following decisions were arrived at : In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is apparently no ground for filing a writ appeal against the Hon’ble Court’s common Judgment & Order dated 21.10.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 524 of 2018 (Shri T. Tungzalian Vs. State of Manipur & Ors.) and Review Petitions No. 17, 33, 34, 35 of 2017 as the SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.03.06 11:21:51 +05'30' P a g e | 2 same will amount to praying for restoration of earlier interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court thereby restraining release of 50% of the retirement benefits and 1/3rd of the monthly pension without leave of the Hon’ble High Court and those interim order stands merged with the consent order dated 07-03-2017 passed in the above writ petitions. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Court vide the above order dated 07-03-2017 has given the liberty to the State to initiate fresh enquiry in terms of the Act and Rules, if so advised and fresh enquiry has been initiated. Therefore, the State Government may kindly proceed with the enquiry which has already been initiated against the persons concerned for which notice have been issued and Show Cause reply have already been submitted within a stipulated period under the Manipur Personal Liability Act, 2006. Therefore, the right of the State Govt. is not foreclosed as liberty is already granted by the Hon’ble High Court. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks.” Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents have not controverted the aforesaid decision taken by the Government. In the light of the above decision taken by the Government, following review applications came to be dismissed by this Court, there is no merit in the review petition. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil