Page No.# 1/11 GAHC020007922025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Review.Pet./9/2025 SHREI PHEE KHIAM @ PHEE KHIAMNIUNGAN SON OF SHRI SETHIU, PANGSHA VILLAGE, NOKLAK NAGALAND VERSUS 1. STATE OF NAGALAND AND 8 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND P AND AR DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRTETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND. WORKS AND HOUSING DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (HOUSING) NAGALAND KOHIMA 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD(H) NIKLAK NAGALAND Page No.# 2/11 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER TUENSANG NAGALAND 9:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : I. IMTI LONGCHAR, VIKHONO KISO,OBANGNENLA LONGCHAR,W YAKAP KONYAK,MOANUKSUNG KICHU Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Date on which Judgment was reserved : 18.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 23.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the Judgment ? : NA Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes Page No.# 3/11 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Dated: 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. W. Yakap Konyak, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Chang, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos.1 to 8. None appeared for the respondent No.9. 2. The instant application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed praying for review of the order dated 24.10.2025 passed in WP(Civil) No. 218/2025, by the petitioner. 3. The writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was with regard to the non-consideration of his representation dated 16.05.2025 submitted before the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Housing), Tuensang, Nagaland, seeking grant of scale of pay, regularisation of service and consequential pensionary benefits. The petitioner was appointed as a Work Charged Fixed Pay Skilled Labour on 01.06.1976 under the establishment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department (Housing), Tuensang, Nagaland and on completion of 35 years of service, the petitioner was released from service with effect from 31.07.2011 in terms of the Nagaland State Employment Retirement (Second Amendment) Act, 2009.After his release from service on 31.07.2011, till May, 2025, the petitioner had neither raised any question about his release from service nor approached the concerned authorities for regularisation of service or Page No.# 4/11 any pensionary benefits. However, on 16.05.2025, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Housing), Tuensang, Nagaland, for grant of scale of pay for regularisation of service for pensionary benefits; nothing has been done on his representation by the respondent authorities. 4. This Court, after hearing the parties and upon finding that no satisfactory explanation had been furnished for the inordinate delay and laches in filing the aforesaid writ petition, declined to entertain the same. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage itself on the ground of delay and laches.The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 24.10.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 218/2025 and thereby, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner who worked as Work Charged Pay Skilled Labour from 01.06.1976 to 31.07.2011 in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD (Housing), Tuensang, Nagaland and pay the retirement benefit. 5. 5. The petitioner's case is that he, along with a few other persons, were released from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD (Housing), Tuensang, vide order dated 25.04.2013, wherein it was recorded that upon completion of 35 years of service on 31.07.2011 and on attaining the age of 60 years, he was released from service.It is contended by the petitioner that he had been working as a Muster Roll/Fixed Pay Skilled Labour under the aforesaid establishment since 01.06.1976 and upon completion of 35 years of service, was released from service with effect from 31.07.2011. It is further contended that Page No.# 5/11 although the petitioner was released from service, no pensionary benefits was granted to himalong with the other persons whose names appeared in the order dated 25.04.2013. It is contended that some similarly situated persons who had also rendered more than 35 years of service in the same department, namely, Shri Mongchen, whose name appeared at Serial No. 4 of the release order dated 25.04.2013; Shri Noksha, whose name appeared at Serial No. 8 thereof, and Shri PhutingKhiam, whose name appeared at Serial No. 7, had approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by filing separate writ petitions. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by a common Judgment and Orderdated 27.03.2015. 6. It is contended that the aforesaid writ petitioners, whose services had not been regularised despite rendering 35 years of service in the same department had approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by filing individual writ petitions seeking regularisation of their services from the date of their joining and for grant of pension and other retirement benefits in accordance with the applicable Rules. The aforesaid three writ petitions, registered as WP(C) No. 96(K)/2014; WP(C) No. 104(K)/2014 and WP(C) No. 105(K)/2014, were heard together and disposed of by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by a common Judgment and Orderdated 27.03.2015,the relevant observations made therein are reproduced below: “…7. In the present case in hand, there is no dispute that all the 3 writ petitioners were appointed as Labour on fixed pay by the respondents and that they have continued in service for 35 years before been superannuated by the common order dated 25/4/2013 issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Public Works Department (PWD Housing) Tuensang, Page No.# 6/11 Nagaland. By the said order, all the 3 writ petitioners are shown to have completed 35 years of service w.e.f. 31/7/2010, 31/7/2012 and 31/8/2012 respectively. 8. This Court has also considered the CCS pension rules 1972. Further, the reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the parties has also been considered by this Court. This Court has also considered the length of service rendered by the petitioners in their respective post before been superannuated with effect from the dates as indicated herein above. It is seen that the petitioners had been in continuous service, though under fixed pay, for 35 long years and they had given their prime time of their life to the service of the State Government. The State being a model employer cannot be allowed to apply the method of exploitation against such petitioners. After having extracted the best part of their lives, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be allowed to go high and dry after 35 long years of service. The stand of the State respondents that as the petitioners were appointed on fixed pay and had retired as such, they are not entitled to pension and other retirement benefits appears to be very harsh and in-human more particularly when they have sacrificed the best part of their life to the service of the State Government. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is therefore, of the considered opinion that the State respondents should re-consider the case of the petitioners again. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services only for the purpose of paying pensionary benefits and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Let such consideration be done within a period of 3 months from the date of Page No.# 7/11 receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment and Order. It is also made clear that any decision taken by the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioners forthwith. 10. With the above direction and observations all these 3 writ petitions stands disposed of.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner was engaged in the same department and held a position similar to that of the aforesaid three writ petitioners. It is submitted that having rendered service under the same department and having been released from service in circumstances similar to those of the aforesaid writ petitioners, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as was granted by this Court vide the common Judgment and Orderdated 27.03.2015.The learned counsel further submits that in compliance with the said common Judgment and Orderdated 27.03.2015, the concerned department, namely the Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, considered the cases of the aforesaid writ petitioners and by separate orders, granted them the benefits of regularisationfor the purpose of pensionary benefits. The learned counsel has referred to an Order No. NPWD/ESTT/CON/REG/2021 (Pt) dated 07.12.2017, whereby one of the writ petitioners, namely Shri Mongchen, was granted such benefits. 8. The learned counsel also submits that when the matter was taken up by this Court on 24.10.2025, the case of the aforesaid writ petitioners was not properly presented before the Court. According to the learned counsel, the writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. However, it is contended that the delay and laches, if any, were Page No.# 8/11 neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred on account of the petitioner's illiteracy and lack of awareness regarding his entitlement to regularisation and pensionary benefits. He submits that the petitioner was unaware of the writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and came to know of the same much later. Upon coming to know of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation dated 16.05.2025 before the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Housing), Tuensang Division, Tuensang, seeking regularisation of service one day prior to retirement so as to receive the pensionary benefits. 9. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway &Anr., reported in (2003) 1 SCC 184, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that the aggrieved person was illiterate and, therefore, despite the huge delay and laches, the case of the aggrieved person was considered by condoning such delay and laches. He further submits that since no third-party right has been created in the instant case, nobody would be prejudiced if any relief is granted to the petitioner despite the delay and laches.In support of the said contention, reliance has also been placed on the decision in Lokeshwar Das v. Union of India &Anr., reported in (2014) 2 GLT 868. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Chang, learned Government Advocate submits that in the three writ petitions referred to by the petitioner, the common Judgment and Orderwas passed as the petitioners therein had Page No.# 9/11 approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court within a reasonable time and there was no delay and laches on their part. However, in the present case, there is an inordinate delay and laches which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. She, therefore, submits that the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. On a special query made by the Court to the learned counsel for the parties as to whether the concept of regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as directed in the common Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2015, still holds the field and whether the said principle is challenged before any higher court or not, the learned counsel for the parties replied in the negative, stating that the principle still remains in force, as no challenge has been made to the aforesaid common Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2015. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the concerned department as a Muster Roll/Fixed Pay Skilled Labour on 01.06.1976 and continued to serve the department without any break until his release from service on 31.07.2011 upon completion of 35 years of service. It is also evident that the three similarly situated persons who were the writ petitioners in the cases culminating in the common Judgment and Orderdated 27.03.2015, were granted the benefits of regularisationfor the purpose of pensionary benefits. In those cases also, the petitioners had served in the same department, in similar capacities and for almost the same length of services. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, after taking Page No.# 10/11 into consideration the relevant pension rules as well as the long years of service rendered by the aforesaid writ petitioners, passed the said common Judgment and Orderdated 27.03.2015 directing the respondent authorities to consider their cases for regularisationfor the purpose of pensionary benefits. 13. In the instant case, although the petitioner has approached this Court at a very belated stage, nearly 14 years after his release from service, he is similarly situated to the petitioners in the aforesaid three writ petitions. It is also seen that the petitioner, being an illiterate person was unaware of the rights and benefits to which he may have been entitled by virtue of having rendered 35 years of service in the concerned department. 14. Taking into consideration of the fact that similarly situated persons have already been granted the benefits of regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits merely because they had approached this Court at an earlier point of time, depriving the present petitioner of the same benefits solely on account of his ignorance and delayed approach to the Court without really examining the merit of the case, would result in injustice to the present petitioner, especially considering that the petitioner is an illiterate person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe and hails from a remote village. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the petitioner's writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No.218/2025 was dismissed at the motion stage on the ground of delay and laches, this Court is convinced that the said order dated 24.10.2025 passed in WP(C) Page No.# 11/11 No.218/2025 deserves to be reviewed in light of the common Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2015. Accordingly, the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 218/2025 is recalled and the connected writ petition, WP(C) No.218/2025 is restored for hearing on merits afresh. 16. The Registry to do the needful in terms of the instant order. 17. With the above directions and observations, the instant review petition stands allowed by recalling the order dated 24.10.2025 passed in WP(C)218/2025. 18. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant