Page No.# 1/20 GAHC020005232024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/21/2024 STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY NAGALAND KOHIMA 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY P AND AR DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 3: THE FINANVCE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 4: THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 5: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUENSANG NAGALAND 6: THE TREASURY OFFICER TUENSANG NAGALAN VERSUS SHRI CHOTICHEM SANGTAM AND ANR S/O LATE SMTI. THANGJENLA SANGTAM, R/O MANGANGKHI VILLAGE, TUENSANG, P.O. LONGKHIM 2:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : GOVT ADV NL, Advocate for the Respondent : I. IMTI LONGCHAR (R-1), MOANUKSUNG Page No.# 2/20 KICHU,OBANGNENLA LONGCHAR,VIKHONO KISO,W YAKAP KONYAK ::BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER For the Appellants : Ms. V. Suokhrie, Addl. Adv. General For the Respondents : Mr. I. ImtiLongchar, Advocate. : Mr. Joshua Sheqi, Advocate. Date of hearing :20.05.2026 Date of Judgment : 20.05.2026 J UDGMENT & O RDER (ORAL) 20.05.2026 [U.K.Nair, J] Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Kohima, Nagaland, appearing for the Proforma Respondent No.2. 2. The appellants, herein, have instituted the present intra-Court appeal assailing the Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2024, passed by Page No.# 3/20 the learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.312/2017, allowing the prayer of the petitioner, therein, to be authorized pension and pensionary benefits for the services rendered by her husband under the respondents. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present appeal is noticed as under; Smti. Thangjenla Sangtam (hereinafter referred to as the original petitioner), had approached the writ Court by projecting that her husband Yolise Sangtam was initially temporarily appointed as a contingency paid Dobashi by the Deputy Commissioner Tuensang, vide issuance of an order dated 18.08.1970.The said appointment although projected to be an appointment on contingency basis, the husband of the original petitioner was authorized a scale of pay and his such engagement was effected against a post which was newly created. Thereafter, the husband of the original petitioner was vide order dated 10.06.1974, promoted as Grade-II Dobashi w.e.f.01.06.1974, and was authorized a scale of pay and other allowances. The husband of the original petitioner continued in his services till the date of his superannuation which had occasioned on 01.07.1981. The husband of the original petitioner after his superannuation, had repeatedly approached the respondent authorities praying for Page No.# 4/20 being authorized his pension and pensionary benefits, however the same was not authorized to him during his lifetime. The husband of the original petitioner passed on, on 16.06.2002. The husband of the original petitioner was only authorized a service gratuity and a DCRG, during his lifetime. The original petitioner, thereafter, moved the respondent authorities for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits for the services rendered by her husband. It was projected by the original petitioner before the respondents that her husband having been appointed against a sanctioned regular vacant post w.e.f., 01.8.1970, and having continued in his services without any break till the date of his superannuation i.e. on 01.07.1981, her husband had acquired the minimum qualifying service for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits. The respondent authorities on processing the claim made by the original petitioner proceeded vide letter dated 11.07.2017, to inform the Accountant General, Kohima, Nagaland, that the husband of the original petitioner having rendered only 9 (nine) years of service, he was found to be 1 (one) year short of the minimum qualifying service of 10 (ten) years to be eligible for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, it was held that the case of the husband of the original petitioner was not covered by the Page No.# 5/20 provisions of extant Rules. The present appellants, herein, having entered appearance in the writ proceedings and having brought their stand on record by way of filing affidavits, the writ petition has taken up for final consideration by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge upon considering the issues arising in the said proceedings was pleased vide Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2024, to dispose of the said writ petition by holding that the husband of the original petitioner had the qualifying service of 10 (ten) years for being authorized pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1972). Accordingly, it was directed that the pension and pensionary benefits as receivable by the husband of the original petitioner, including Family pension, be released to the original petitioner. Being aggrieved the appellants have instituted the present writ appeal. 4. At this stage it is to be noticed that the original petitioner after the passing of the Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2024, had passed on, on 10.03.2024. However, the said fact not being to the knowledge of the appellants, the present appeal was instituted arraying her as Respondent No.1. However, subsequently she was substituted by her Page No.# 6/20 son Chotichem Sangtam, as respondent no.1. Accordingly, the further consideration in the present order is being made considering the substitution so made. 5. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, after reiterating the facts, noticed, hereinabove, has at the outset submitted that the initial appointment of the father of the respondent no.1, being so effected on contingency basis, the period of service rendered on contingency basis by the father of the respondent no.1, would not be mandated to be reckoned while computing the qualifying service rendered by him for pension and pensionary benefits. She submits that the period of service rendered by the father of the respondent no.1 w.e.f., 18.08.1970 till 10.06.1974 i.e. a period of around 03 (three) years 10 (ten) months, would be excluded while computing the qualifying service rendered by him and the said period cannot be construed to be qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits. She submits that excluding the period w.e.f, 18.08.1970 till 10.06.1974, the father of the respondent no.1 is found to have acquired qualifying service of about 7 (seven) years. The minimum requisite qualifying service mandated for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits, being 10 (ten) years, the father of the respondent no.1 having fallen short of the same, the appellants Page No.# 7/20 had held the father of the respondent no.1 to be not entitled for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits. 6. Ms. V. Suokhrie, by referring to the provisions of Rule 2 (b) of the said Rules of 1972, submits that the Rules of 1972, do not apply to persons paid from contingencies. She further submits that from the Government of India decisions under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1972, it is clear that only half the period of service rendered by an employee who was paid from contingencies would be mandated to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits, upon the said employee being absorbed in the regular cadre. She submits that applying the said proposition in respect of the father of the respondent no.1, it is found that he had rendered qualifying service of around 09 (nine) years and fell short by 1 (one) year of the minimum qualifying service of 10 (ten) years mandated to be eligible for being authorized pension under the Rules of 1972. She submits that before the learned Single Judge, the said position was highlighted by the appellants, however, the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the same in the manner required and therefore it is submitted that the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to the effect that the father of the respondent no.1, herein, was entitled to be authorized pension and pensionary benefits under the provisions of the Page No.# 8/20 Rules of 1972, to be a perverse conclusion. 7. Ms. V. Suokhrie, by referring to the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge with regard to the application of the provisions of the Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 26.11.2009 and 29.03.2017, has submitted that the father of the respondent no.1, herein, having superannuated from his services in the year 1981, the said Office Memorandums issued subsequently, would not have a retrospective effect and the same cannot be held to also cover the case of the father of respondent no.1, herein. She submits that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the said position, proceeded to draw a conclusion in the impugned judgment to the effect that the said Office Memorandums would also cover the case of the father of the respondent no.1, herein. Accordingly, she submits that on the said count, the impugned judgment would mandate an interference from this Court. 8. In the above premises, Ms. V. Suokhrie, submits that the impugned Judgment would mandate an interference by this Court and it is to be held that the father of the respondent no.1, herein, would be entitled to only with the service gratuity and the DCRG, already authorized to him. 9. Mr. I. ImtiLongchar, learned counsel, appearing for the Page No.# 9/20 respondent no.1, submits that the initial appointment of the father of the respondent no.1, although projected to be so effected on contingency basis, infact was an appointment against a sanctioned post and he was authorized a scale of pay. Accordingly it is submitted that at best, the said service can be termed to be a temporary one. By referring to the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1972, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the same mandates that the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in officiating or temporary capacity. It is submitted that the temporary service of the father of the respondent no.1, was followed, without interruption, by a substantive appointment in the same service. Accordingly, it is submitted that the entire service rendered by the father of the respondent no.1, w.e.f. 01.08.1970 till the date he had retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation i.e., w.e.f., 01.07.1981, is to be reckoned as service qualifying for pension and pensionary benefits. 10. Mr. I. ImtiLongchar, submits that accordingly in view of the above factual position obtaining in the matter, the father of the respondent no.1, is found to have rendered more than the minimum qualifying service of 10 (ten) years and accordingly, the learned Single Judge, had Page No.# 10/20 committed no error in concluding that the father of the respondent no.1, was entitled to be authorized pension and pensionary benefits. 11. Mr. I. Imti Longchar, by referring to the OMs dated 26.11.2009 and 29.03.2017, has submitted that a perusal of the said Office Memorandums would go to reveal that the same are clarificatory in nature and accordingly, would have a retrospective effect. He submits that the said Office Memorandums mandates that the period of adhoc/contract/work-charged/substitute, on being followed by regularization or regular appointment without break or gap in service, shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act of 2009. He submits that even if, the period of service rendered by the father of the respondent no.1, w.e.f., 18.08.1970 till his promotion to the post of Dobashi Grade-II w.e.f., 01.06.1974, is treated as temporary service, the said period of service both in terms of the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1972, as well as the provisions of the said Office Memorandums dated 26.11.2009 and 29.03.2017, would be reckonable for the purpose of computing the qualifying service rendered by him, for authorizing to him pension and pensionary benefits. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused Page No.# 11/20 the materials available on record. 13. The father of the respondent no.1, was appointed vide order dated 18.08.1970, as a contingency paid Dobashi. A perusal of the said order dated 18.08.1970, would reveal that the appointment of the father of the respondent no.1, along with 15 (fifteen) others, was so effected against a valid sanctioned post and was with authorization of a scale of pay along with other permissible allowances. Thereafter, vide an order dated 10.06.1974, the father of the respondent no.1, was promoted and temporarily appointed to the post of Grade-II Dobashi, again with a authorization of scale of pay and other due allowances. The father of the respondent no.1, having been promoted vide order dated 10.06.1974, to the post of Dobashi Grade-II, it is to be held that he was an incumbent in the regular cadre of the service with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 18.08.1970. Further, the initial appointment of the father of the respondent no.1, being so effected against a sanctioned post along with a authorization of a scale of pay, the stipulation made that he was a contingency paid employee, is a misnomer and given the contents of the order dated 18.08.1970, it is to be held that the appointment so effected, was so effected against a regular sanctioned vacant post with all consequential benefits and cannot be held to be an appointment made on contingency basis, as is Page No.# 12/20 normally known. The appointment effected in respect of the father of the respondent no.1, vide the order dated 18.08.1970, at best can be held to be a temporary appointment. 14. Rule 13 of the Central Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1972, mandates that the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in officiating or temporary capacity. The first proviso to the Rule 13 mandates that such officiating or temporary service is to be followed without interruption, by a substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. The appellants have also not disputed that the promotion effected in respect of the father of the respondent no.4, vide the order dated 01.06.1974, was not so made on substantive basis. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the father of the respondent no.1, after being appointed temporarily vide order dated 18.08.1970, continued in his services and was appointed on a substantive basis vide the order dated 01.06.1974, against the post of Grade-II Dobashi. Accordingly, by applying the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1972, it is to be held that the qualifying service in respect of the father of the respondent no.1, is to be so construed w.e.f., the date of his initial appointment effected vide the order dated 18.08.1970. On considering Page No.# 13/20 the services rendered by the father of the respondent no.1, w.e.f., 18.08.1970, till the date of his superannuation occasioning on 01.07.1981 as service qualifying for pension, it is found that the father of the respondent no.1, had rendered more than 10 (ten) years of qualifying service and accordingly, was entitled to be authorized pension and pensionary benefits. The contentions raised by the counsel for the respondent no.1, basing on the Government of India decisions under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1972, is found to be without any substance, inasmuch as, nothing was brought on record to demonstrate that the said decisions were also adopted by the Government of Nagaland, after adopting the provisions of the Rules of 1972, for application to its employees. The Office Memorandums dated 26.11.2009 and 29.03.2017, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, is found by us to be clarificatory in nature and the authorities had clarified, therein, that the services rendered on contract/adhoc/workcharged, shall be reckonable for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for pension interms of the provisions of Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act of 2009. The said Office Memorandums being clarificatory in nature, it is to be held that the same would have a retrospective effect and would also cover the case of Page No.# 14/20 the father of the respondent no.1, herein. Accordingly, it is found that the father of the respondent no.1, had rendered the requisite qualifying service for being authorized pension and pensionary benefits. 15. Having drawn the said conclusion, we would now examine the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2024. The learned Single Judge appreciating the submissions, similar to the one made before us in the present proceedings, had drawn the following conclusions ; “20. As regards the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the 50% of the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner as contingency paid Dobashi was taken into consideration for computing the qualifying service as per the Government of India decision under Article 368 of the CSR Rules as mentioned by the respondents in their affidavit-in- opposition, this Court is of considered opinion that though the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule have been adopted by the State of Nagaland, any decision taken by the Government of India under the said rules would not be automatically applicable to the employees of the State of Nagaland unless same is adopted by the State of Nagaland. Page No.# 15/20 21. In the instant case, the decision to take into consideration only half of the service of the employees who were paid from contingency for computing the qualifying period is not the part of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules but only a decision of the Government of India. The State of Nagaland is governed by its own office memorandums and rules and regulations framed by it or adopted by it. Merely because Government of India has taken a decision in a particular manner, same would not bind the State of Nagaland when it has its own Office Memorandum to deal with similar circumstances. The respondent authorities are bound by the policy decision taken by the State of Nagaland and not by any decision taken by the Government of India in this regard, unless the policy decision of the Government of India is adopted by the State of Nagaland. 22. It appears that though the Office Memorandum dated 26th November, 2009 which is relied upon by the petitioner has been superseded by the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-231/2011 dated 29th March 2017, cited by the learned Senior Government Advocate, however, Clause 6 of the said Office Memorandum dated 29th March 2017 provides as follows:- "Now, therefore, it has decided that the period of service rendered on adhoc/contract/work- charged/substitute period which is followed by regularization or regular Page No.# 16/20 appointment without break or gap in service except resignation but notwithstanding the cases of resignations taken up with proper permission for another appointment, shall be treated as public employment and included in calculation of length of service for the purpose of pension under the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (2nd Amendment) Act, 2009." 23. On perusal of the aforesaid clause of the said office memorandum, it appears that the period of service rendered on adhoc/contract/work-charged/substitute period which is followed by regularization or regular appointment without break or gap in service shall be treated as public employment and included in calculation of length of service for the purpose of pension under the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (2nd Amendment) Act, 2009. It appears that though the contingency paid employee are not specifically mentioned in the aforesaid clause, however, as the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post on the scale of pay without all admissible allowances, the nature of his service may be regarded as temporary in nature and as he continued in his service without any interruption or break since 18.08.1970 i.e., the date of his initial appointment, this Court is of considered opinion that he may not be deprived of the benefit given by Clause-6 of the aforesaid memorandum to the adhoc/contract/work- Page No.# 17/20 charged/substitute employees as it would amount to discriminating the petitioner without any reasonable basis. 24. This Court is of considered opinion that the case of the petitioner's husband is covered under Clause-6 of the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-231/2011 dated 29th March 2017 and the respondent authorities were wrong in depriving the benefit of taking into consideration the period of service rendered by the husband of the present petitioner from 18.08.1970 to 01.07.1974 on the basis of Government of India's decision under Article 368 of the CSRs (Rule 14) by not taking into consideration of the period of service paid from contingencies as qualifying service for the pension.” 16. Upon drawing the said conclusions, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by making the following observations and directions; “25. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the qualifying service of the husband of the present petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining his entitlement to pension shall commence from 18.08.1970 when he joined as contingency paid Dobashi in a sanctioned post with a scale of pay with all admissible allowances and on doing so the period of qualifying service rendered by the husband of the present petitioner up to the date of Page No.# 18/20 his superannuation on 01.07.1981 comes to 10 years and 11 months which is more than the qualifying service required for getting pension. The petitioner's husband is, therefore, entitled to pension from the date of his superannuation i.e., 01.07.1981 till the date of his death i.e., on 16.09.2002 and after the said date the petitioner is also entitled to get family pension. 26. The State respondents shall ensure that the pension of the late husband of the petitioner as well as family pension of the petitioner is fixed at the earliest and all retirement benefits of the husband of the present petitioner be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.” 17. On a close perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2024; we are of the considered view that the same has been so drawn by considering the relevant factors involved and also the provisions of the Rules of 1972 and the Office Memorandums dated 26.11.2009 and 29.03.2017. The conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge, in our considered view are not perverse and the same is a plausible one. Such view accordingly, would not mandate any interference by us in the present intra Court Appeal. 18. In this connection, support is drawn from the decision of the Page No.# 19/20 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 232, wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in an intra-Court appeal, the finding of fact of the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the Appellate Bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has been further held that merely because another view, or, a better view is possible; there should be no interference with, or, disturbance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. 19. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, to the facts of the present case, we having not found any perversity with regard to the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge in the impugned order and the view taken by the learned single Judge being a plausible view; we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, to take a different view in the matter. 20. As noticed, hereinabove, during the pendency of the present appeal, the original petitioner having passed away, her son i.e., the respondent no.1 was substituted in her place in the present proceedings. The respondent authorities now while proceeding to Page No.# 20/20 implement the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2024, shall do so by reckoning the fact that the original petitioner is also no longer alive in the matter and accordingly, the arrears of pension would now be required to be authorized to the heirs of the original petitioner i.e., Smti. Thangjenla Sangtam, as per the provisions of the Rules of 1972. 21. With the above observations and directions, the present writ appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant