Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020002782025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/88/2025 SHRI NYAKWANG KONYAK S/O SHRI NOKPAI KONYAK, RESIDENT OF SHEANGHAH WAMSA VILLAG, MON NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMM ISSIONER AND SECRETARY PHED NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PHED NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED MON DIVISION NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, KONLI BUCHEM,V ANNE THERIE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 09.12.2025 Heard Mr. N.M. Konyak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Longkumer, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that by an Office Order dated 13.01.1996, the petitioner came to be appointed as a Work-Charged employee in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Engineering [PHE] Department, Mon Sub-Division. Accordingly, the Service Book of the petitioner was opened wherein his date of birth was recorded as 21.10.1975. By an Order dated 10.01.2013 issued by the Office of the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Nagaland, the petitioner who was serving as Work-Charged labour on fix pay, was upgraded to Work-Charge Fitter Helper against a resultant vacancy with pay scale. As per the date of birth recorded at the time of his entry into service, the petitioner is due to retire on 31.01.2031. 3. The petitioner has projected that the petitioner has been made to retire prematurely on 31.03.2024 by the State respondents by considering his date of birth is 21.03.1964. It is the contention of the petitoiner that his date of birth was wrongly reflected in his Work-Charge Identity Card which was issued in 2007 and the same was taken into consideration for retiring him prematurely on 31.03.2024. 4. When a verbal complaint was made by the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 vide an Office Letter dated 14.05.2024 wrote to the Office of the respondent no. 3 making a request for rectification for the date of superannuation of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 3 on 04.02.2025 for rectification of his date of superannuation. As the Representation seeking rectification of his date of superannuation was not given consideration despite lapse of a reasonable period, the petitioner approached this Court by the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Page No.# 3/3 respondent authorities to dispose of the Representation dated 04.02.2025, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no. 3. 5. Mr. Longkumer, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents including the respondent no. 3 has submitted, on instruction received in the form of an Office Letter no. CE/PHE/GEN-EST/2005 dated 04.12.2025 from the respondent no. 3, that the respondent no. 3 has already taken the Representation dated 04.02.2025 on board and the Representation containing the petitioner’s request for rectification of his date of superannuation would be given consideration and disposed of within a period of one month from today. 6. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent no. 3 that the Representation dated 04.02.2025 containing the petitioner’s request for rectification of his date of superannuation would be given consideration and disposed of within a period of one month from today, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider and dispose of the Representation dated 04.02.2025 within a period of 1 [one] month from today. It is accordingly ordered. 7. It is further observed that the speaking Order to be passed after consideration of the Representation is to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith thereafter. 8. The Office Letter no. CE/PHE/GEN-EST/2005 dated 04.12.2025 of the respondent no. 3, placed by Mr. Longkumer is kept with the case record. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant