1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Cont.Cas(C) No. 9 of 2023 Ref:- WP(C) No. 823 of 2022 Chanambam Yaiskul Singh Petitioner Vs. Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR ORDER 14.07.2025 [1] Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Timmiwon Raihing, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 4 and Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 are present before the Court physically. [2] This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the complainant/petitioner against the respondents/accused, whereby in that proceeding seeking for implementation of the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in WP(C) No. 823 of 2022 dated 28.09.2022 for payment of pensionary benefits during the pendency of the aforesaid writ proceeding. [3] Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. P. Tamphamani in this matter facilitated the order dated 3rd May, 2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, Manipur wherein in that order it reveals that in exercise of the power conferred under Rule No. 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and as per Government of Manipur, Finance Department (PIC) letter No. 18/53/2023-e-FD dated 14/12/2023 read with Under Secretary (Land Resources), Department, Government of Manipur letter No. SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.08.28 13:16:32 +05'30' 2 | P a g e ESTTRE/114/2023-REV-REVENUE dated 19/12/2023, sanction is hereby accorded for payment of Provisional Pension @ Rs. 27,700/- pm for 6 (six) months w.e.f. 01-08-2023 to 31-01-2024 with admissible relief and allowance from time to time to Shri Ch. Yaiskul Singh, LDC who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2022, though the order has been rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, Manipur dated 3rd May, 2024. [4] Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents in this matter, the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner further submitted that even after the subsequent order dated 3rd May, 2024, whatever the pensionary benefits has accrued, the same has been receiving regularly. This submission which is made by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner in this matter is taken on record. [5] Consequently, this contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration. [6] Therefore, this contempt petition is hereby closed. CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil