Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020002952026 2026:GAU-NL:241 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/68/2026 SMTI. ACHILA AONOK D/O LATE LIMATOSHI AO, KHALASI (CASUAL), OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KOHIMA DIVISION, KOHIMA, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA. 4:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT KOHIMA DIVISION KOHIMA NAGALAN D Advocate for the Petitioner : S. TEMJEN, CHOPIKA SUMI,TEMJEN,TOSHITEMJEN PONGENER,LONGTSUBENI T HUMTSOE Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER 05/05/2026 Heard Mr. S. Temjen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajungli Sangtam, learned counsel for the State respondents. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that her father late Limatoshi Ao, while working as driver in the establishment of the Directorate of Irrigation, Government of Nagaland, had died in harness while performing his duty attached to the Deputy Directorate, Economics & Statistic, Nagaland by succumbing to his injuries. 3. It is projected that the mother of the petitioner had applied for the pensionary benefits and ex-gratia compensation from the Government of Nagaland. On 10.09.2009, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground before the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control, Nagaland. The petitioner was initially given appointment as a casual Khalasi on 18.08.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Khalasi on casual basis instead of considering her appointment on compassionate ground. It is projected that on several occasions, her superior authorities were requested for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. However, as such requests were not acceded to. On 11.03.2025, the petitioner, by submitting a representation, requested the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department for regularization of her service on compassionate ground. The said request Page No.# 3/6 letter was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department vide forwarding letter dated 11.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 20.08.2025 for regularization of her service on compassionate ground. 4. As nothing happened, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C)./14/2026 and this Court by order dated 09.02.2026 directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2025 and to dispose of the same with a speaking order within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the receipt of the order. 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (Respondent No. 3), by a communication dated 15.04.2026, which is challenged in this writ petition, had responded by stating that as per the records, she has been appointed as Khalasi casual basis vide order dated 18.08.2012 with yearly extension and as per the seniority and service position, as the petitioner had completed only 14 years of service in the department, her position in the casual seniority list is at Sl. 26 and therefore, regularizing her service before others would be infringement of their rights and accordingly, in respect of the petitioner’s current status and in view of her seniority position and the available slots under the prescribed quota, it was not possible to regularize her service at this immediate moment and the petitioner was assured that her case for regularization will be strictly considered in accordance with her seniority and availability of vacancies as per the procedure followed in the department as per the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2024. Page No.# 4/6 6. In the meanwhile, by communication dated 04.03.2025, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department, Expenditure “B” Branch had sanctioned a budget for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) as ex-gratia payment to the mother to the petitioner on death of the father of the petitioner on 23.08.2009 on government duty, indicating that the authority will remain valid between 6th to 3rd March, 2025. It is submitted that at bar, that as per instructions received by him the mother of the petitioner has got the ex-gratia payment. 7. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for regularization the petitioner’s service, for which he prays for issuance of a notice. 8. Heard the learned Government Advocate, as per the documents appended in this writ petition, the petitioner, by referring to the death of her father while on duty on 06.08.2009, had applied for “suitable job” in the Department of Irrigation & Flood Control. From the contents of the said application (Annexure-II), it does not appear that the application was for giving appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the body of the said application, a competent authority under a signature dated 10.09.2009, directed the registration of a compassionate case. However, the petitioner was appointed as Khalasi on casual basis by order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control. 9. The petitioner, having accepted the offer, has been working as Khalasi on casual basis since her appointment order dated 18.08.2012. The Page No.# 5/6 request for regularization of service on compassionate ground was forwarded by Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department on 11.03.2025. In the considered opinion of the court, having accepted the offer of engagement as a Khalasi on casual basis, after a lapse of about 13 years as on 11.03.2025 (now 14 years), the application of the petitioner cannot be ordered by the Court to be considered as an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Firstly, because of the fact that earlier the State had a different policy for appointment for compassionate ground and by a subsequent Office Memorandum No. AR- 8/8/78 dated 17.09.2015, read with Addendum No. AR-8/8/78 dated 09.04.2019, a new policy is in force, Secondly, the order of appointment made on 18.08.2012 has to be first set aside and/or cancelled and only then the authorities can entertain and consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground. 10. Therefore, as the petitioner has accepted her appointment as Khalasi on casual basis since her appointment dated 18.08.2012, there appearance to be no legal basis for the Court to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner under the compassionate scheme in force. 11. Be that as it may, in view of the assurance given to the petitioner vide impugned communication dated 15.04.2026 for considering her case for regularization in accordance with seniority and available vacancies, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue the same as and when she come into the of zone consideration. 12. Accordingly, for the purpose of converting the application of the Page No.# 6/6 petitioner from “appointment to a suitable post” to one on compassionate ground, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and therefore, the same is dismissed. 13. However, it is clarified that this dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to pursue for regularization of her service in terms of the OM dated 28.08.2024, or such other schemes subsequent thereto. JUDGE Comparing Assistant