Mangsatabam Harekrishna LEICHOMBAM NIKITA DEVI, ,MR. M. IBOHAL SINGH,MR. M. AJITKEVIN SINGH,MR. M. CHITTARANJAN vs State of Manipur and another — WP(C)/389/2026

Disposed: Contested--Dismissed as withdrawn on 29th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: MNHC010013482026

e-Filing Number

27-05-2026

Filing Number

WP(C)/1193/2026

Filing Date

27-May-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/389/2026

Registration Date

27-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr Justice A.Guneshwar Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice A.Guneshwar Sharma

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP(C) ( 36 )

Sub-Category

Retirement benefits. ( 10039 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

29-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed as withdrawn

Last updated 30-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mangsatabam Harekrishna LEICHOMBAM NIKITA DEVI, ,MR. M. IBOHAL SINGH,MR. M. AJITKEVIN SINGH,MR. M. CHITTARANJAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Manipur and another

  2. 2.Chief Secretary

    Adv. GA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr Justice A.Guneshwar SharmaView PDF

    The High Court of Manipur dismissed the writ petition filed by retired IAS officer Mangsatabam Harekrishna as withdrawn, permitting him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal instead, which is the appropriate forum for matters involving All India Services members. Both counsel agreed to this course of action, and the petitioner retained the right to raise all contentions before the competent tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-May-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Mr Justice A.Guneshwar Sharma

  4. 27-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/389/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Manipur dismissed the writ petition filed by retired IAS officer Mangsatabam Harekrishna as withdrawn, permitting him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal instead, which is the appropriate forum for matters involving All India Services members. Both counsel agreed to this course of action, and the petitioner retained the right to raise all contentions before the competent tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case