Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020008252024 2026:GAU-NL:37 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : RFA/1/2024 THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF COMMUNICATION ACCOUNTS DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATION NE-II CIRCLE VERSUS SMTI. GHOTONI AYE AND 3 ORS W/O LATE NZAMO LOTHA R/O XUVIHE COLONY DIMAPUR, NAGALAND 2:SMTI. BOISHI LOTHA/KUKI R/O HALF NAGARJUN H.NO. 1 GBS DIMAPUR NAGALAND 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(HR/A) BSNL NE-II CIRCLE OFFICE 2ND FLOOR SUPER MARKET DIMAPUR NAGALAND 4:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR/A) BSNL C/O CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER BSNL NE-II CIRCLE OFFICE 2ND FLOOR SUPER MARKET DIMAPUR NAGALAN Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : YANGER WATI, Advocate for the Respondent : P SURIEN, PAKINRICHAPBO,K KIHITO CHISHI BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 05-02-2026 The present appeal has been instituted against the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland in Declaratory Suit No. 01/2019, instituted by the respondent no. 1 herein. Vide the said order dated 03.06.2021, the Trial Court had directed that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the BSNL authorities, to deposit the pension benefits receivable on the account of the services rendered by late Nzamo Lotha to the account of the Court, and the pension was directed to be received by the defendant No. 1 , Smti. Boishi Lotha. It was also decided that the plaintiff, i.e, the respondent no. 1 herein and the defendant no. 1, i.e, the respondent no. 2, herein, shall distribute the pension equally. The present appeal has been instituted by the Joint Controller of Communication Accounts. It is seen from the impugned order that there is no direction passed to the appellant herein by the Trial Court in the matter. In view of such position, Mr. Yangerwati, learned counsel Page No.# 3/3 appearing for the appellant in the present matter prays that he be permitted to withdraw the present appeal. The prayer is not objected to by Mr. P. Surien, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant