Page No.# 1/9 GAHC020005012025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/146/2025 SHRI LIIMATHUNG YANTHAN R/O WOKHA, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY AND FINANCE COMMISSIONER FINANCE DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY P AND AR DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : MOA JAMIR, K SHIJOH,GRACE I NAMGI,IMTI CHANG,ROSEMARY KIKON,SHISA JAMIR,T.METSIEO,THEJANUO METHA,R MERE,M SOLO,Y HUMTSOE,M JEMU Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Page No.# 2/9 Date : 27-11-2025 Heard Mr. Y. Humtsoe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Kithan, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs- “A) A writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued quashing the impugned Notification dated: 05.07.2023 and impugned letter NO.FIN/TA/ESTT/1-20/05 (Vol-IV)/160 dated 11.06.2025. B) A writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to restore the Petitioner's position and status as Divisional Accounts Officer (D.A.O) with effect from 22.12.2010, for all purposes including computation of pension and retirement benefits; C) Direct the Respondents to pay all consequential monetary and service benefits arising out of such restoration, including arrears of pay, pension, and allowances.” The petitioner, herein, vide order dated 05-02-1988 was appointed as an Assistant Divisional Accountant on contract basis for a period of 01 (one) year and was posted in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Wokha. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the services of the petitioner was regularized and he was appointed against the post of Junior Divisional Accountant w.e.f. 28-04-1998. The seniority of the petitioner was directed to be reckoned from the date of regularization of his services, i.e. w.e.f. 28-04- 1998. Page No.# 3/9 The petitioner was, thereafter, vide order dated 22-12-2010, granted officiating promotion to the post of Senior Divisional Accountant (Sr.DA) subject to regularization. While the petitioner was continuing against the post of Sr.DA, he was allowed officiating promotion to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer (DAO) vide notification dated 10-09-2020. The said notification further stipulated that the officiating promotion of the petitioner was subject to passing of the departmental examination in terms of the Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Nagaland Treasuries, Accounts and Audit Service Rules 2002 (Part-I) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2002). The petitioner continued in his services against the post of DAO till the date of his superannuation, which had occasioned on 28-02-2003. The petitioner while in service was required to appear in the mandated departmental examination twice, but he did not appear, therein. Pursuant to the retirement of the petitioner, herein, he having not cleared the departmental examination, the respondent authorities vide notification dated 05-07-2003 proceeded to rescind the officiating promotion granted to him to the post of DAO and he was downgraded to the rank of Sr.DA. However, the period of service of the petitioner on officiating basis against the post of DAO was held to be reckonable for computing his service for pensionary benefit. The petitioner was held to be entitled to compute his pension and pensionary benefit, by reckoning him to be an incumbent in the cadre of Sr.DA. Thereafter, it is seen that the petitioner, herein, was accorded an opportunity to appear in the departmental promotion examination for the third time vide notification dated 17-07-2024. The petitioner, accordingly, availed the said Page No.# 4/9 chance and cleared the said examination. The petitioner accordingly claimed that his pension and pensionary benefits be now reckoned against the post of DAO, he having cleared the mandated departmental examination. The said prayer of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the Finance Department on the ground that the clearance of the said examination by the petitioner, after his retirement would be of no consequences, inasmuch as, a Govt. employee had to clear the departmental examination while in service. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have made their respective submissions basing on the stands taken by them in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is not reiterated, herein. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The facts noticed hereinabove are not in dispute. The petitioner was granted officiating promotion to the post of DAO vide notification dated 10- 09-2020 with the following stipulation:- “The officers shall be required to pass the departmental examinations as and when the existing provisions under Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Nagaland Treasuries, Accounts and Audit Service Rules, 2002(Part-1) are suitably amended and notified and only thereafter, the officiating promotions shall be requisitioned to the Departmental Promotion Committee for subsequent regularization.” 6. The petitioner during his service tenure admittedly was granted the opportunity to appear in the departmental examination twice, but he had not availed the same and thereafter, the petitioner retired from his services Page No.# 5/9 on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28-02-2023. The condition stipulated in the notification dated 10-09-2020, while granting officiating promotion to the petitioner against the post of DAO not having been found to have been satisfied, the Finance Department vide notification dated 05- 07-2023 rescinded the officiating promotion granted to the petitioner from the post of Sr.DA to that of DAO and the petitioner was downgraded to the post of Sr.DA. The petitioner was, however, held to be entitled to compute his pension and pensionary benefits only against the post of Sr.DA. However, the period of officiating promotion against the post of DAO was held to be reckonable for the purpose of computing of his pay and allowance as well as his pension and pensionary benefits. 7. The service conditions of the incumbents in the Nagaland Treasuries, Accounts and Audit is governed by the provisions of Nagaland Treasuries, Accounts and Audit Rules 2002. The said rules, more particularly, Rule 9 and Rule 10 thereof being relevant is extracted herein below:- “9. Requirement for passing of departmental examination (1) Members of the Service appointed through direct recruitment from competitive examinations/interview or otherwise shall be required to pass a Departmental Examination prescribed in Rule 10(1) to be conducted on completion of the period of training and probation of 1 (one) year. (2) The members of service holding substantive posts at the time of commencement of these rules shall be required to undergo mid-career training course for 3 (three) months at the Departmental Training Institute and subsequently pass the departmental examination prescribed in Rule 10 (1). This shall be a one-time examination either at the Group A/ Group B level or at the Group C level. A member of the service who has passed one examination shall not be required to pass the other. (3) Sub-Rule (1) and (2) shall become effective from the date of notification of these rules. 10. Procedure for conduct of departmental examination Page No.# 6/9 (1) The Departmental Examination shall be conducted by the Departmental Training Institute from time to time covering the syllabus as given in Schedule-III (A) and (B). (2) A-person shall be allowed a maximum of 3 (three) consecutive attempts to pass the departmental examination prescribed in Sub-Rule (1), failing which he shall be barred from further promotion.” 8. A perusal of the provisions of Rule 9(1) would reveal that members of the service appointed through direct recruitment from competitive examination/ interview or otherwise are required to pass a departmental examination prescribed under Rule 10(1). Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 2002 mandates that departmental examinations shall be conducted by the departmental training institute from time to time covering syllabus given in Schedule-III(a) & (b). Provisions of Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2002 further mandates that a person shall be allowed a maximum 03 (three) consecutive attempts to pass the departmental examination prescribed in Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 10, failing which, he shall barred from further promotion. 9. Accordingly, it is the requirement for being promoted to the next higher grades of service that the incumbent in question has to clear the prescribed departmental examination in terms of the provisions of Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the said Rules of 2002. The petitioner, herein, while being granted officiating promotion to the post of DAO, the said officiating promotion was made subject to the petitioner’s clearing the prescribed departmental examination under Rule 10 of the said Rules of 2002. The petitioner had not cleared the said examination while he was in service. The petitioner was retired from service on 28-02-2023. On retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be held to have continued as a member of Page No.# 7/9 the Nagaland Finance and Accounts Service and the Nagaland Treasuries, Accounts Subordinate Service. Accordingly, the petitioner having not cleared the departmental examination during his service career, the notification dated 05-07-2023 issued by the authorities rescinding the officiating promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of DAO and his down- gradation to the rank of Sr.DA in the considered view of this Court is not erroneous, inasmuch as, while downgrading the petitioner to the post of Sr.DA, the service benefits drawn by him while officiating against the post of DAO has not been recovered, rather the said period of his service was directed to be treated as period spent on duty. 10. Having noticed the above position, this Court would now examine the contentions made by the petitioner that he having been only afforded two opportunities to appear in the said examination while in service and the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2002 mandating a maximum of 03 (three) consecutive attempts to pass the departmental examination to be provided to a member of the service, a third opportunity having been provided to the petitioner to appear in the departmental promotion examination by the respondent authorities and he having cleared the same, the officiating promotion of the petitioner to the post of DAO is required to be regularized in terms of the stipulation made in this connection in the notification dated 10-09-2020 by which he was granted officiating promotion to the post of DAO. 11. This Court has considered the said submission of the learned counsel Page No.# 8/9 for the petitioner. However, the contention of the petitioner would not be acceptable, inasmuch as, the petitioner had retired from his service w.e.f. 28-02-2023 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner had appeared in his third attempt for the said departmental examination only in the year 2024 that is after the date of his superannuation. On the superannuation of the petitioner the employee-employer relationship existing between the petitioner and the respondent authorities had ceased. The petitioner after his retirement could not have been deemed to have continued to be a member of the service. Accordingly, the facility extended to the petitioner to appear for the third time in the departmental promotion examination vide communication dated 17-07-2024, in the considered view of this Court, was not permissible. Accordingly, the petitioner qualifying in the said departmental examination in his third attempt, after his superannuation from service would also be of no consequence and the same cannot be construed to be in satisfaction of the stipulation as made in the notification dated 10-09-2020. The Finance Department vide communication dated 11-06-2025 had considered the issue and had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner, herein, had failed to appear in the departmental examination held while he was in service, without assigning any reason or intimation to the department, despite two opportunities given to him and that the third opportunity as given to the petitioner would create negative precedence for the department in future. Accordingly, the notification dated 05-07-2023 issued towards rescinding the officiating promotion granted to the petitioner to the rank of DAO was held to be not revocable. Page No.# 9/9 12. In view of the discussion made, hereinabove, and this Court having concluded that it was not permissible for the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to appear in the departmental examination contemplated under the provisions of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2002, after his superannuation, this Court holds that the reasoning advanced by the Finance Department in the communication dated 11-06-2025 would not mandate any interference. Accordingly, the petitioner is required to be deemed to have retired from his services against the post of Sr.DA and his post retirement benefits be also computed by holding him to be an incumbent in the post of Sr.DA on the date of his superannuation. However, as provided in the notification dated 05-07-2023, his admissible service and pensionary benefit be not affected and the same be so computed against the post of Sr.DA and further no recovery be effected with regard to the pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner against the post of DAO. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant