THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. versus NISHEVI ACHUMI on 11 July 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgmentand Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Gauhati atKohima in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2019 by which the Division Bench ofthe High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed thejudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing theappellant – State to regularize the services of the deceased husband ofthe respondent from one day earlier to his death and thereafter to paythe family pension to the Respondent, the State has preferred the presentappeal.

2. The deceased husband of the respondent was working as work-charge Jugali. He died in harness on 28.08.2005 as work-chargeemployee. That in the year 2017 and after a period of twelve years fromthe death of the deceased employee, the respondent herein the widow/wife of the deceased employee filed a writ petition before the learnedSingle Judge claiming that the services of her late husband ought to havebeen regularized and therefore, she is entitled to the family pension.The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and directed theappellant – State to regularize his services from one day prior to the dateof his demise so that the respondent herein – original writ petitioner andher family members are entitled to pensionary benefits.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant – State had preferredthe appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugnedjudgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissedthe said appeal and has not interfered with the judgment and order passedby the learned Single Judge regularizing the services of the respondent’shusband one day prior to his demise. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfiedwith the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench ofthe High Court and not interfering with the judgment and order passedby the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred the present appeal.Though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.

3. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe State has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court directing the appellant – State toregularize the services of the deceased employee one day prior to his B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ademise is absolutely unsustainable. She has made the followingsubmissions:

(i) That during his life time, the deceased employee never claimedregularization;

(ii) That the respondent - original petitioner - widow claimedBregularization after a period of twelve years from the deathof the deceased employee;

(iii) Even otherwise the deceased employee was not entitled toregularization even on the date of his death as he was muchbelow in the seniority list and his turn had not come forregularization; C

3.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has furthersubmitted that assuming that the services of the work-charge employeewere required to be regularized in that case also as per the scheme theservices of the work-charge employee were to be regularized as perDseniority and as and when the vacancy arises. It is submitted that allthose work-charge employees whose services were regularized wasmuch after the death of the deceased employee and that too as per theseniority. It is submitted that therefore at the time of the death of thedeceased employee he was much below in the seniority list and thereforeEhis services were not required to be regularized as his turn had not come.It is submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a graveerror in directing the appellant to regularize the services of the appellantone day prior to his death.

Making above submissions it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

F

F4. Having heard learned counsel for the State and considering thesubmissions made on behalf of the State and having gone through thejudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge confirmed bythe Division Bench, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court hascommitted a grave error in directing the appellant to regularize the servicesof the deceased employee one day prior to his death.G

4.1 It is required to be noted that the deceased employee died inthe year 2005. During his lifetime he never claimed any regularization.That the respondent herein – original writ petitioner - wife of the deceasedemployee claimed the regularization after a period of twelve years fromthe death of the deceased employee. At the time of the death of the H

deceased employee he was not entitled to regularization as he was muchbelow in the list of the worked charge employees whose services wereto be regularized. Under the Regularization Policy the services of thework-charge employees were required to be regularized as per theseniority and as and when the vacancy arises. The services of the otherwork-charge employees even who were senior to the deceasedemployees were regularized in the year 2009 i.e. after the death of thedeceased employee. Despite the above, the High Court has directed theState to regularize the services of the deceased employee one day priorto his death, which otherwise his services were not required to beregularized as his turn had not come and he was much below in theseniority list.

4.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainableand the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above presentappeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court as well as the learned Single Judge ishereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ petitionfiled by respondent - wife herein stands dismissed. However, in the factsand circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by: Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H