The State Of Nagaland vs Nishevi Achumi

The State of Nagaland & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

Nishevi Achumi …Respondent

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the High

Court of Gauhati at Kohima in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2019 by

which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the

said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed

Signature Not Verifiedby the learned Single Judge directing the appellant – State to Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2022.07.11 17:21:48 IST Reason: regularize the services of the deceased husband of the

1 respondent from one day earlier to his death and thereafter to

pay the family pension to the Respondent, the State has

preferred the present appeal.

2. The deceased husband of the respondent was working as

work­charge Jugali. He died in harness on 28.08.2005 as

work­charge employee. That in the year 2017 and after a

period of twelve years from the death of the deceased

employee, the respondent herein the widow/wife of the

deceased employee filed a writ petition before the learned

Single Judge claiming that the services of her late husband

ought to have been regularized and therefore, she is entitled to

the family pension. The learned Single Judge allowed the said

writ petition and directed the appellant – State to regularize

his services from one day prior to the date of his demise so

that the respondent herein – original writ petitioner and her

family members are entitled to pensionary benefits.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant –

State had preferred the appeal before the Division Bench of

the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order the

2 Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said

appeal and has not interfered with the judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge regularizing the services of

the respondent’s husband one day prior to his demise.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court and not interfering with the judgment and order passed

by the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred the

present appeal. Though served nobody appears on behalf of

the respondent.

3. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

directing the appellant – State to regularize the services of the

deceased employee one day prior to his demise is absolutely

unsustainable. She has made the following submissions:

(i) That during his life time, the deceased employee

never claimed regularization;

3

(ii) That the respondent ­ original petitioner ­ widow

claimed regularization after a period of twelve years

from the death of the deceased employee;

(iii) Even otherwise the deceased employee was not

entitled to regularization even on the date of his

death as he was much below in the seniority list

and his turn had not come for regularization;

3.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has

further submitted that assuming that the services of the work­

charge employee were required to be regularized in that case

also as per the scheme the services of the work­charge

employee were to be regularized as per seniority and as and

when the vacancy arises. It is submitted that all those work­

charge employees whose services were regularized was much

after the death of the deceased employee and that too as per

the seniority. It is submitted that therefore at the time of the

death of the deceased employee he was much below in the

seniority list and therefore his services were not required to be

regularized as his turn had not come. It is submitted that

therefore the High Court has committed a grave error in

4 directing the appellant to regularize the services of the

appellant one day prior to his death.

Making above submissions it is prayed to allow the

present appeal.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the State and

considering the submissions made on behalf of the State and

having gone through the judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench, we are

of the firm opinion that the High Court has committed a grave

error in directing the appellant to regularize the services of the

deceased employee one day prior to his death.

4.1 It is required to be noted that the deceased employee

died in the year 2005. During his lifetime he never claimed

any regularization. That the respondent herein – original writ

petitioner ­ wife of the deceased employee claimed the

regularization after a period of twelve years from the death of

the deceased employee. At the time of the death of the

deceased employee he was not entitled to regularization as he

was much below in the list of the worked charge employees

whose services were to be regularized. Under the

5 Regularization Policy the services of the work­charge

employees were required to be regularized as per the seniority

and as and when the vacancy arises. The services of the other

work­charge employees even who were senior to the deceased

employees were regularized in the year 2009 i.e. after the

death of the deceased employee. Despite the above, the High

Court has directed the State to regularize the services of the

deceased employee one day prior to his death, which

otherwise his services were not required to be regularized as

his turn had not come and he was much below in the

seniority list.

4.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above

present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the

learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside.

Consequently, the original writ petition filed by respondent ­

6 wife herein stands dismissed. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, July 11, 2022.

7