Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020005262024 2025:GAU-NL:559 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/193/2024 MS. L. ADAHA D/O LATE N. LORHO PERMANENT R/O TADUBI VILLAGE PO/PS- TADUBI, SENAPATI, MANIPUR-795104 REPRESENTED BY LEGAL GURDIAN SMT. L. MARY W/O KASHIIPRI ADAHRII PERMANENT R/O TADUBI VILLAGE PO/PS- TADUBI, SENAPATI, MANIPUR-795104 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT KOHIMA NAGALAND- 797004 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPT. NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT KOHIMA 797004 3:GENERAL MANAGER NAGALAND STATE TRANSPORT GOVT. OF NAGALAND DIMAPUR- 797112 4:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPT. OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS BELOW NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT THIZAMA ROAD-KOHIMA-797004 Page No.# 2/6 5:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL NAGALAND KOHIMA- 79700 Advocate for the Petitioner : V. SIRIE, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 20-11-2025 Heard Mr. V. Sirie, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. P. Mhonbeni Ezung, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, the petitioner is the disabled daughter of one late N. Lorho Mao, who passed away in the year 1982, while serving as a Driver in the Nagaland State Transport Department. On the demise of the petitioner’s father, the family pension was sanctioned to the wife of late N. Lorho Mao, who is the alleged mother of the petitioner, vide Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. NL/SF/811 dated 14.06.1982. The mother of the petitioner also expired in the year 2009. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is suffering from 75 % disability caused by Cerebral Palsy Diplegia. As the family pension had stopped in the year 2009, the petitioner who was the unmarried daughter of late N. Lorho Mao, submitted a representation dated Page No.# 3/6 01.07.2019 to the Accountant General, Nagaland, requesting that she be given the family pension. The petitioner also annexed a copy of the Guardianship Certificate showing one L. Mary, to be her legal guardian issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, Manipur. The petitioner also submitted two other representations dated 01.03.2022 and 25.07.2023 to the State government and the Accountant General, Nagaland, stating that she should be given family pension as the Family Court, Senapati, Manipur had declared the petitioner to be the legitimate unmarried daughter of late N. Lorho Mao. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the family pension was not given to the petitioner by the State of Nagaland, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 05.09.2024. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner expired on 20.09.2025. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as family pension is a property, this Court should decide as to whether the deceased petitioner was entitled to family pension, and if it decides in the affirmative, the property (family pension) should be given to the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, who is the elder sister of the petitioner, subject to the determination to be made by a Succession Court. In this respect, the learned counsel has relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to show that the family pension is property. 5. Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated Page No.# 4/6 13.07.2015, issued by the Government of Nagaland, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (Pension Cell), for inclusion of a name as a nominee in the PPO Book of the deceased pensioner, a proper inquiry is to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. After the inquiry is made, and the prescribed format is submitted, then only can a person be included as a nominee in the PPO Book after the pensioner’s demise, to enable the said person to avail the benefit of family pension. 6. She further submits that this Court having taken note of the requirements of the Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2015, had vide order dated 08.09.2025, directed that the petitioner should undergo the requirement provided in the Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2015. However, prior to the petitioner undergoing the inquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2015, the petitioner expired. She thus submits that when the required procedure to be followed in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2015 had not been followed, for including the petitioner’s name as a nominee in the PPO Book of the deceased pensioner, the petitioner could not have been eligible to be given the family pension. She submits that as there is no document in the official records of the deceased pensioner, to show that the petitioner was the daughter of the deceased pensioner, the family pension could not be granted to the petitioner. 7. Ms. P. Mhonbeni Ezung, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, submits that the role of the Accountant General, Page No.# 5/6 Nagaland comes into play only after the head of the concerned department and P&AR Department gives approval for grant of family pension to a nominee. In this case, as no approval had been given by the concerned departments, family pension could not be given to the petitioner. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. As can be seen from the records and from the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, there is nothing in the official records to show that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased pensioner. The petitioner is not a nominee in the PPO Book of the deceased pensioner. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was a part of any family declaration of the deceased Government servant. This Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner’s father had expired in the year 1982 and that the family pension was thereafter given to the nominee of the deceased pensioner, i.e., his wife, who also expired on 24.01.2009. 10. The petitioner, for the first time, prayed for payment of family pension, on the ground that she was the unmarried daughter of the deceased pensioner vide representation dated 01.07.2019. Two other representations were thereafter submitted by the petitioner, i.e, on 01.03.2022 and 25.07.2023. The petitioner also submitted the judgment and order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Family Court, Senapati, Manipur in Mat.(Decl) Case no. 06/2021, which declared the petitioner (47 years) to be the legitimate unmarried Page No.# 6/6 daughter of the late pensioner. 11. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Senapati, Manipur shows that the Government of Nagaland was not a party to the proceedings and the only parties, who were parties to the proceedings were other alleged siblings of the petitioner. 12. In view of the above, this Court finds that the order of the Family Court, Senapati, Manipur, in which the Government of Nagaland was not a party, would not be decisive in determining as to whether the petitioner was the unmarried eldest daughter of the deceased pensioner, unless the requirements of the Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2015 has been complied. However, as the petitioner had expired during the proceedings of this case and prior to an inquiry being held and concluded, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2015, the prayer for grant of family pension cannot be allowed. This Court is of the view that the present writ petition has become infructuous. 13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant