Page No.# 1/9 GAHC020005162026 2026:GAU-NL:523 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/112/2026 SHRI L. TONGPANG LONGKUMER AND 5 ORS R/O KEVIJAO COLONY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, DIMAPUR 2: SHRI BENJONGTOSHI R/O ADC COURT AREA DIMAPUR NAGALAND DIMAPUR 3: SHRI CHUJANGMEREN R/O LOWER FOREST COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAND 4: SHRI MASACHUBA OZUKUM R/O MOKOKCHUNG TOWN COMPOUND MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 5: SHRI P. MAYANG JAMIR R/O KASHIRAM VILLAGE DIMAPUR NAGALAND 6: SMTI. W. ASON W/O LATE R. THEPONGSE SANGTAM R/O HOUSE NO 703 FULL NAGARJAN KUDA B KHEL DIMAPUR NAGALAN VERSUS Page No.# 2/9 STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF NAGALAND PHED NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF NAGALAND CABINET SECRETARIAT (CABINET CELL) NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : LIMAWAPANG, PFOSEKHO PFOTTE,AREPLA CHANG Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR JUDGMENT Date : 28-09-2026 Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Addl. A.G. Nagaland for the State Page No.# 3/9 respondents and Ms. N. Rupreo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition was taken up for final consideration in the admission stage and is being disposed of by the present order. 3. The petitioners by way of instituting the present writ petition have presented a challenge to an Office Memorandum dated 5/9/2019 and an order dated 5/9/2019, by which in pursuance to a Cabinet decision, the salaries drawn by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, during the period of their over-stay in service i.e w.e.f. 01.03.2018 to 20.12.2018, was directed to be recovered from their respective pension. 4. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the writ petition is noticed as under:- 4.1. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, on completion of their respective 3(three) years Diploma in Civil Engineering from Khelhoshe Polytechnic, Atoizu, before they could complete the prescribed 6(six) months of practical training, were appointed as Computer Gr-II by the Superintendent Engineer, PHE, Nagaland. Thereafter, on completion of the 6(six) months of practical training course, they were conferred with the Diploma Certificates in Civil Engineering by the competent authority in the month of July, 1984. Thereafter, the Department vide order dated 30.08.1984 appointed the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6 as Overseer Gr-I (subsequently re-designated as Section Officer Gr-I). Page No.# 4/9 4.2. The petitioners continued in their services and vide an order dated 07.12.2018, they were released from their respective services w.e.f. 28.02.2018 on completion of 35 years of service in accordance with the provisions of the Nagaland retirement from Public Employment (2nd Amendment) Act 2009, which mandates that a person in public office shall hold office for a term of 35 years from the date of joining public employment or until he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. 4.3. The petitioners by contending that their services against the public post is to be construed w.e.f. 30.08.1984 i.e the date on which they were appointed as Overseer Gr-I and not w.e.f. 11.02.1983 i.e the date on which they were appointed as Computer Gr-II, assailed the order dated 07.12.2018 by way of instituting W.P.(C) 260/2018. A co-ordinate bench of this Court on examining the issues arising in the said writ petition proceeded vide Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2019, to reject the plea of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, herein, and held that the petitioners, therein, were in public employment w.e.f the date they were appointed as Computer Gr-II on 11.02.1983 and had completed 35 years of service, as of 28.02.2018. Accordingly, the order dated 07.12.2018 was upheld. However, the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 noticing that the petitioners were not at fault for having continued in their services beyond the date on which they had completed 35 years of service, proceeded to direct that the period of over-stay in service in respect of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 260/2018, shall be regularised and Page No.# 5/9 condoned. It was also opined that the respondent authorities shall act in the matter strictly in accordance with the stipulation contained in the order dated 07.12.2018. 4.4. The respondent authorities on receipt of the copy of the order dated 02.04.2019, passed by this Court in W.P.(C)260/2018, processed the matter for placing it before the Cabinet. Accordingly, the matter on being placed before the Cabinet in its meeting held on 03.09.2019, a decision was arrived at to the effect that condonation of the over-stay of service by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, be not approved and further any excess payment made to them should be recovered from their pension. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.09.2019, it was directed that the excess salaries drawn by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, be recovered from their pension. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. As noticed herein above, vide order dated 07.12.2018, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6 were released from their services on completion of 35 years of service w.e.f. 28.02.2018. The said order dated 07.12.2018, was assailed by them before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) 260/2018. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2019, examined the issue arising in the said writ petition and held that the services of the petitioners, for the purpose of determining completion of 35 years has to be reckoned w.e.f. the date Page No.# 6/9 they were initially appointed as Computer Gr-II, vide order dated 11.02.1983. The Co-ordinate Bench also rejected the plea of the petitioners that they were released from their services with retrospective effect, which are not permissible in law. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the said judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 has thereafter drawn the following further conclusion:- “However, while disposing the petition, this Court would direct the respondent authorities that the period of overstay in service from 01.03.2018 till 07.12.2018 shall be regularized and condoned as it was not the fault of the petitioners for the aforesaid overstay in service, and other conditions as mentioned in the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 be also implemented.” 7. A perusal of the above conclusion drawn by the co-ordinate Bench vide Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2019, would go to reveal that this Court had directed that the period of the overstay in respect of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 260/2018 is to be regularized and condoned as the same was not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioners, therein. This Court further provided that the stipulation set out in the order dated 07.12.2018, shall also be implemented. 8. In the order dated 07.12.2018, while releasing the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, herein, and the husband of the petitioner No.6, from their respective service w.e.f. 28.02.2018, the period of over stay in service w.e.f. 01.03.2018, was proposed to be regularized and Page No.# 7/9 condoned, subject to the approval of the Cabinet. It was further stipulated that the pay and allowance availed during the period of over-stay in service shall be treated as honorarium and no recovery will be made as the service of the officials were utilized during the over-stay period. Further, the period of over-stay in service will not be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. However, after passing of the judgment and order dated 02.04.2019, when the matter was placed before the Cabinet in its meeting held on 03.09.2019, the cabinet on consideration of the matter did not approve the proposal for condonation of the over-stay in service and further directed that any excess payment made to the officials, for whom condonation is sought, should be recovered from their pension. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.09.2019, the Additional Secretary, PHED directed for effecting recovery of the pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, during the period of their overstay in service, from their pension. 9. This Court has considered the materials brought on record and finds that the direction passed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2019, extracted herein above, has not been complied with. A perusal of the said direction would reveal that this Court had regularized and condoned the period of over-stay in respect of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6. 10. On conjoint reading of the direction passed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 and the order dated 07.12.2018, this Court finds that the stipulation therein of regularizing and condonation of over-stay period of the said persons would be so Page No.# 8/9 done subject to the approval of the Cabinet was superseded by the direction of this Court, inasmuch as, this Court had categorically directed for regularizing and condonation of the over-stay period of the petitioners. The further direction in the judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 to the effect that the other conditions as mentioned in the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 be also implemented, would only mean implementation of the following conditions:- “i) The pay and allowances availed against thye period of over-stay in service will be treated as honorarium and no recovery will be made, as the service of the officials were utilized during the over- stay period. ii) The period of over-stay in service will not be reckoned as qualifying service for pension.” 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the matter when it was placed before the Cabinet in its meeting on 03.09.2019, the Cabinet was not properly apprised of the intent and purport of the directions passed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 in W.P(C) 260/2018. This Court having already regularized and condoned the over-stay period of the service of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, a further consideration on the said subject was not warranted by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, the Office Memorandum dated 05.09.2019, containing the decision of the Cabinet in respect of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of the petitioner No.6, in its Page No.# 9/9 meeting held on 03.09.2019 stands set aside. Consequently the order dated 05.09.2019 also stand set aside. 12. Having interfered with the Office Memorandum dated 05.09.2019 and the order dated 05.09.2019, this Court remand the matter back to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration in the matter strictly in accordance with the decision of this Court as rendered vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 in W.P.(C) 260/2018. While considering the matter, the respondent authorities shall also comply with the stipulation as contained in clause (i) and (ii) (extracted herein above) of the order dated 07.12.2018. 13. The said exercise now required to be initiated by the respondent authorities for compliance of the directions passed herein, be so initiated and concluded within a period of 1(one) month with the issuance of a speaking order to each of the petitioners involved in the present writ petition. 14. The amounts recovered from the pension of the petitioners No. 1 to 5 as well as from the family pension of the petitioner No. 6, in terms of the order dated 05/09/2019, shall be re- authorized to the petitioners within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant