The State of Nagaland & Ors. v. Nishevi Achumi
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Gauhati at
Kohima in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2019 by which the Division Bench of
the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirme d the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directi ng the
appellant – State to regularize the services of the deceased husband of
the respondent from one day earlier to his death and thereafte r to pay
the family pension to the Respondent, the State has preferred the present
appeal.
2. The deceased husband of the respondent was working as work-
charge Jugali. He died in harness on 28.08.2005 as w ork-charge
employee. That in the year 2017 and after a period of twelve years from
the death of the deceased employee, the respondent herein the widow/
wife of the deceased employee filed a writ petition b efore the learned
Single Judge claiming that the services of her late husband ought to have
been regularized and therefore, she is entitled to the fam ily pension.
The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and directed the
appellant – State to regularize his services from one day prior to the date
of his demise so that the respondent herein – original writ petitioner and
her family members are entitled to pensionary benefits.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant – State had preferred
the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
the said appeal and has not interfered with the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge regularizing the services of the respondent’s
husband one day prior to his demise. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court and not interfering with the judgment and order passed
by 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 of
the State has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgm ent and
order passed by the High Court directing the appella nt – State to
regularize the services of the deceased employee one day prior to his
THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. v. NISHEVI ACHUMI
demise is absolutely unsustainable. She has made th e following
submissions:
(i) That during his life time, the deceased employee never claimed
regularization;
(ii) That the respondent - original petitioner - widow clai med
regularization after a period of twelve years from the dea th
of the deceased employee;
(iii) Even otherwise the deceased employee was not entitled to
regularization even on the date of his death as he was much
below in the seniority list and his turn had not come for
regularization;
3.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has further
submitted that assuming that the services of the work-charge employee
were required to be regularized in that case also as per the sc heme the
services of the work-charge employee were to be regularized as per
seniority and as and when the vacancy arises. It is submitt ed that all
those work-charge employees whose services were regularized was
much after the death of the deceased employee and that too as per the
seniority. It is submitted that therefore at the time of the death of the
deceased employee he was much below in the seniority list and therefore
his services were not required to be regularized as his turn had not come.
It is submitted that therefore the High Court has committe d a grave
error in directing the appellant to regularize the services of the appellant
one day prior to his death.
Making above submissions it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the State and considering the
submissions made on behalf of the State and having gone throug h the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge confirmed b y
the Division Bench, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court has
committed a grave error in directing the appellant to regularize the services
of the deceased employee one day prior to his death.
4.1 It is required to be noted that the deceased employee died in
the year 2005. During his lifetime he never claimed any regularization.
That the respondent herein – original writ petitioner - wife of the deceased
employee claimed the regularization after a period of twelve years from
the death of the deceased employee. At the time of the death of the
595
deceased employee he was not entitled to regularization as he was much
below in the list of the worked charge employees whose services were
to be regularized. Under the Regularization Policy the servi ces of the
work-charge employees were required to be regularized a s per the
seniority and as and when the vacancy arises. The services of the other
work-charge employees even who were senior to the d eceased
employees were regularized in the year 2009 i.e. after the death of the
deceased employee. Despite the above, the High Court has directed the
State to regularize the services of the deceased employee one day prior
to his death, which otherwise his services were not requ ired to be
regularized as his turn had not come and he was much below in the
seniority list.
4.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstanc es, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above pre sent
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court as well as the learned Single Judge is
hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ p etition
filed by respondent - wife herein stands dismissed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by: Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. v. NISHEVI ACHUMI