JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri A. Modhuchandra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Shri Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondents to grant additional pension along with retiral benefits for the service rendered by him as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur with effect from 13-09-2011 with interest thereon. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a pensioner after taking voluntary retirement from the service, as an employee of the Government of Manipur, on 11-09-2006 and on the next day itself i.e., 12-09-2006 he was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Government of Manipur. Thereafter, on completion of five years term of service, he demitted his office on 12-09-2011. The petitioner's only grievance is that although he is entitled to additional pension, he has been denied the same without any justification and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed to ventilate his grievance. 4. Shri A. Modhuchandra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions under Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act read with Section 6 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Services) Act, 1991, the petitioner is entitled to pension or in other words, to get additional pension for the service rendered by him as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Government of Manipur. Despite number of representations being submitted to the concerned authorities including the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and the Senior Deputy Accountant (A & E), Manipur, the petitioner has not been granted additional pension, till date, for the service rendered by him as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Government of Manipur. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered on 08-11-2013 by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Aizwal Bench in W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: '"LI. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered on 08-11-2013 by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Aizwal Bench in W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: '"LI. Thus, a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 16(5) of the Act and section 6 of the Election Commissioner (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 would make it clear that a State Chief Information Commissioner on demitting office would be entitled to pension as payable to a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, just like the Chief Election Commissioner of Election Commissioner." 5. An affidavit on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed wherein it is submitted that the Chief Information Commissioner of the State is entitled to additional pension as claimed by the petitioner and that the respondents are in the process for grant of the additional pension along with retiral benefits as prayed for by the petitioner. It is further stated that the matter has been referred to Finance Department for their views/comments/concurrence on the issue of payment of additional pension to the petitioner. 6. On perusal of the said affidavit, it is indubitably clear that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have virtually admitted the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to additional pension for the service rendered by him as the State Chief Information Commissioner, Government of Manipur. Since the respondents have chosen not to contest the present petition, no issue remains to be decided by this court and therefore, this court has no option but to allow the present petition. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the rightful claim of the petitioner has been denied for so long, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the said additional pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.S. Sandhawalia reported in AIR 1994 SC 1377 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the court and accordingly, refused to interfere with the High Court's order directing payment of interest at 12% per annum on the balance of death-cum-retirement gratuity which was delayed by almost a year. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the case of R.S. Dhull Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 2090 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the G.P Fund, Gratuity and other retiral benefits (which remain unpaid) be paid to the appellant within a period of three months with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereon from the date the same became payable to him. On perusal of the said decisions, this court is of the view that they could apply to the facts of the present case and that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the additional pension which remains unpaid from the day he demitted his office on 12-09-2011. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents shall pay the additional pension & retiral benefits to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, with interest thereon at the rate of 12% from the day the same are due to him, ie., 12-09-2011. There shall be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.