Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020008592025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Review.Pet./10/2025 SUNGMO CHANG W/O LATE E. WONGTO @ W. WONGTO CHOLLEN @ W. WONGTO CHANG @ WONGTO CHANG, TUENSANG, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 8 ORS THRUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPT NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPT. OF POWER N/L KOHIMA 5:CHIEF ENGINEER TRANSMISSION AND GENERATION DEPT. OF POWER NAGALAND KOHIMA Page No.# 2/4 6:ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF DEPT. OF POWER N/L KOHIMA 7:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPT. OF POWER TUENSANG NAGALAND 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER TUENSANG N/L 9:ACCOUNTANT GENERAL NAGALAND N/L KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : I. IMTI LONGCHAR, VIKHONO KISO,OBANGNENLA LONGCHAR,W YAKAP KONYAK,MOANUKSUNG KICHU Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Counsel for the State of Nagaland as well as Ms. P. Mhonbeni Ezung, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Joshua Shequi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.9. 2. This application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20.06.2025, passed in the Writ Petition (C) No. 69/2018 on the ground that some new development has taken place after passing of the said judgment. 3. Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that in the Writ Petition (C) No. 69/2018, this Court had directed the State respondents to consider as to whether the case of the husband of the present petition falls within the purview of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 as amended till date and thereafter, pass necessary orders with regard to entitlement of pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner in respect to her deceased husband under the provisions of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 as amended till date. 4. Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that in pursuant thereto the respondents, on 17.07.2025, in a meeting held in the Office Chamber of the Additional Chief Secretary and Finance Commissioner, have discussed the matter in pursuant to the directions of this Court and came to the finding that the case of the petitioner would not fall under the purview of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and thereafter, on 18.07.2018, a circular to that effect was issued. 5. Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the said decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Power on 24.07.2025. 6. Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner further submits that the said development of Page No.# 4/4 communication regarding non-entitlement of benefits to the petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court, is a subsequent event after the judgment of this Court, hence, the petitioner has prayed for review the judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by this Court and direct the respondent authority to pay the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 7. However, during the course of hearing, Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that as apparently the communication issued by the respondent authority to the petitioner on 24.07.2025 is a subsequent development in pursuant to the direction passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (C) No. 69/2018, have the review petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this review application with liberty to approach the appropriate Court in appropriate proceeding, challenging the Circular dated 18.07.2025 as well as communication dated 24.07.2025. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents side raised no objection. 9. Hence, the prayer is allowed. 10. This Review Petition is dismissed on withdrawal with liberty sought for by the petitioner granted. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant