Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020006452024 2026:GAU-NL:327 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/235/2024 MOALONG SANGTAM S/O LATE THEOPI SANGTAM R/O ANGANGBA VILLAGE TUENSANG NAGALAND MB- 70056562341 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BT THE HIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY P AND AR DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER AND DISTRICT PROGRAMMING OFFICER TUENSANG NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : SUPONGWATI WALLING, R ATSULA KIPS Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/5 -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. Supongwati Walling, Adv. Advocate for the State respondent(s): Mr. Ajungli Sangtam, Govt. Adv. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5: Ms. Apila Sangtam, Adv. Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ajungli Sangtam, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Apila Sangtam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the Respondent authorities to consider his case in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, and the Addendum dated 09.04.2019. Page No.# 3/5 3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner’s mother was appointed as Typist and posted at Tuensang in the Office of the District Welfare Officer, Tuensang, Nagaland under the establishment of the Directorate of Social Security and Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, in the scale pay. The mother of the petitioner expired on 20.06.2017, while serving under the said establishment as Typist for 18 years, leaving behind the petitioner and one daughter. The petitioner, thereupon, submitted an application on 04.07.2017, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a BA Graduate from North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) and holds a Diploma in Computer Application. However, as the petitioner’s case had not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. This Court duly takes note of that the Respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is mentioned that the appointment of the mother of the petitioner was to a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, i.e., Integrated Child Development Services. It is further mentioned that the said post which was held by the mother of the petitioner is still not brought within the State plan of the State, meaning thereby, it is yet to come within the ambit of the State employment. In addition to that, at Para 7, it is mentioned that recently the Central Government have stopped the funding for 319 posts, and the State is in active consideration to bring those posts, including the post which was held by the mother of the petitioner within the fold of the State employment. Page No.# 4/5 5. This Court has also taken note of the appointment order of the mother of the petitioner, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the appointment order categorically stipulates that the appointment of the mother of the petitioner was co-terminus with the Central Government Scheme which was envisaged in the Government of India letter dated 24.02.1997. It was also mentioned that the appointment of the mother of the petitioner was liable to be terminated in the event of discontinuation of the Centrally Sponsored ICDS Scheme funded by the Government of India. 6. In this aspect, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015. The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum being pertinent to the adjudication of the instant dispute is reproduced herein under:- “In supersession of this Department’s Office Memorandum of even number dated 16/01/2012, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to revise the existing scheme for appointment, on compassionate ground, of family member of the State Government employees who die in harness as per guidelines enumerated below…” 7. From a perusal of the above quoted portion of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, it is mentioned that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is only available to family members of the State Government employees who died in harness. The mother of the petitioner was not a State Government employee inasmuch as she was appointed against a Centrally Sponsored ICDS Scheme. 8. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that appointment on Page No.# 5/5 compassionate basis is not a source of recruitment, in fact, appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is the policy of the Government in order to provide succour to the members of the family of the deceased Government servant who was the sole bread earner of the family, employment on compassionate basis is given. 9. Taking into account that the appointment on compassionate basis is an exception, the claim for appointment on compassionate basis has to strictly fall within the parameters of the Policy. In the instant case, the policy of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 stipulates that it is only available to the State Government employees. 10. Considering the above, as the mother of the petitioner was not a State Government employee at the time of her unfortunate demise, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, read with the Addendum dated 09.04.2019. 11. In view of the above analysis, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for issuance of a writ, for which the writ petition stands dismissed, however, no costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant