K. Meruno, J.;- Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Raghumani Singh, learned Addl. Govt. Ad­vocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. For the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, briefly narrated, the admitted facts are as under: (a) While the petitioner was serving as Havildar in the 7th Bn. Manipur Rifles, he was placed under suspension along with 3 (three) other personnel vide order dated 21.02.2000 on the contemplation of a De­partmental Enquiry on the charges that he left the station without leave or permission from the communication unattended and without giving charge to anybody thereby reducing the strength of the guard and invigorated the courage of the underground elements in tak­ing away their arms and ammunitions. (b) Thereafter, after holding a joint D.E., the petitioner and other 2 personnel were dismissed from service vide order dated 27.06.2000. (c) The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal in WP(C) No. 1234 of 2000 and vide order dated 25.9.2002, the writ was al­lowed with the direction to the respondents to take back the petitioner into service with 50% back wages. (d) The State of Manipur preferred writ appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge and vide order dated 18.04.2005, the writ appeals were dismissed. (e) The State of Manipur preferred S.L.P.s before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide a Judgment and order dated 27.04.2006, the S.L.P.s were disposed of with the direction that if the authority desires to hold a fresh enquiry, the same shall be done within 4(four) months and they shall be treated as under suspension and they shall be paid suspension allowances and in the event, the authority decide not to hold enquiry or no such enquiry is held within the said period, the order of the High Court shall then operate. (f) While the matter was pending before the Apex Court, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005 and he was paid his suspension allowance upto 31.12.2005, and (g) Since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation or otherwise, the authorities concerned did not hold any Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. (f) While the matter was pending before the Apex Court, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005 and he was paid his suspension allowance upto 31.12.2005, and (g) Since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation or otherwise, the authorities concerned did not hold any Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, it is a fact that as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner is deemed to be in service and he should be provided his retiral benefits after attaining the age of superannua­tion, but the same has not been done by the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases in support of his submissions: 1) (1971) 2SCC 330; 2) (1998) 4 SCC 379 '; 3) (2007) 9 SCC 41 ; 4) AIR 2008 SC1840; 5) AIR 2008 SC 2952 ; 6) 2009 (4) GLT 774 7) WP(C) No. 164 of 2010 dated 11.6.2010 4. Counter on behalf of the State respon­dents have also been filed. The relevant paras of the counter filed by the respondents are stated in paras 5, 6 and 7. However, para 7 of the counter is relevant for the purpose of deciding the writ petition and as such, the same is reproduced below: 7) That, with reference to para Nos. 10 and 11 of the writ petition, it may be reiterated that the petitioner was reinstated under deemed sus­pension and he has been paid subsistence al­lowances. But in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition WP(C) No. 1234 of 2000 for re­hearing the matter by a Single Judge as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no fresh en­quiry could not (sic) be taken up against the petitioner. Regrinding the payment of retiral benefits, it shall be subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition. Therefore, there is no question of withholding his retiral benefits. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appear­ing for the respective parties, what now emerges is that pursuant to the disposal of the cases by the Apex Court, the petitioner was reinstated under deemed suspension vide of­fice order No. A-2/3/97 MR (Pt-II) dated 04.11.2006 by giving suspension allowance i.e. subsistence allowance, in accordance with the rules from the 1 st day of suspension. Further, since the Apex Court vide order dated 27.4.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2289 of 2006 had directed the Single Bench of this Court to re-hear the connected writ petition initiated by the writ petitioner and to record its findings by referring to the facts and evidence, the fresh Departmental Enquiry against the present writ petitioner has not been taken up. Accordingly, the pensionary benefits have not been given to the petitioner pending outcome of the results of the rehearing, as mentioned above. The same has also been stated in para-7 of the counter, which has been quoted above. The question now arises, whether the respon­dents can deny the retiral benefits of the peti­tioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated and kept under suspension and that he retired from service on attaining the date of superan­nuation w.e.f. 17.12.2005 and except the sub­sistence allowance, the petitioner has not been paid the other retiral benefits. 6. The petitioner in the present writ peti­tion is not claiming for regular pension, which may be given to the petitioner once the pend­ing cases are disposed of in favour of the pe­titioner. The only claim the petitioner is mak­ing is concerned about the provisional pen­sion which is available to him under Rule 9(4) read Rule 64 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. It is now well settled law that the pay­ment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the State but on the other hand, payment of pension is governed by the Rules and the Government servants coming within the Rules are entitled to claim pension as has been held in the reported case of the Apex Court reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 in the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. This decision has been given by a Constitutional Bench consisting of five Judges. In terms of Rule 9(4) and Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 read with Gov­ernment of India's decisions, the grant of cent percent provisional pension under Rule 69 is mandatory even if the Departmental or the Judicial procedures are continued. The very concept of providing pension to a retired Government employee is to ensure that the retiree does not suffer from want of minimum material requirement to sustain himself and his family and pension as such, is not a bounty but an entitlement earned by the employee after long service. The very concept of providing pension to a retired Government employee is to ensure that the retiree does not suffer from want of minimum material requirement to sustain himself and his family and pension as such, is not a bounty but an entitlement earned by the employee after long service. What transpires from Rule 9(4), Rule 69 and the Government of India's decisions with regards to Rule 69 is manda­tory, and the admitted fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension when the writ petition is pending before the Single Judge, as directed by the Apex Court, the case of the petitioner clearly falls under the purview of Rule 9(4) and Rule 69 of the CCS Pen­sion Rules read with Govt. of India's deci­sion and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the provisional pension till the disposal of the case pending. The provisions of Rule 9(4) and Rule 69 have been held and entitled in the case reported in AIR 2008 SC 2952 in the case of BSNL & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Saxena. The same has also been held by a judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (4) GLT 774 in the case of H.K. Dutta Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the peti­tioner has also supplied a decision of this Court rendered on 11.6.2010 in WP(C) No. 164 of 2010, which is pertaining to one petitioner, who was also a similarly situated person in­volved in the same incident, in the same De­partmental Enquiry, in the same dismissal or­der, in the same writ petition and writ appeal and SLP before the Apex Court, which was disposed of by the Apex Court on 27.04.2006 along with the petition of the present petitioner and who had approached this Court and this Court had directed the respondents to pro­vide provisional pension to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 164 of 2010 under the provi­sions of Rule 9(4) read with Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 or (Manipur Pen­sion Rules, 1977) within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 7. 7. Considering, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, there is no doubt before this Court that the petitioner is also similarly situated as the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 164 of 2010. Therefore, the respondents are directed to provide the provisional pension to the petitioner in terms of Rule 9(4) and Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 or (Manipur Pension Rules, 1977) within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 8. It is made clear that the arrear pension amount due and payable to the petitioner shall also be paid within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. With the above observations and di­rections, this writ petition stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs is made.