Disposed

Asangla Aier and 2 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Nov 2019WP(C)/208/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, female relatives of a deceased casual employee, sought posthumous regularization for family pension. The Court directed respondents to consider the pending representation and pass a speaking order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State respondents to consider the petitioners' representation and pass a speaking order within three months.

Asangla Aier and 2 Ors. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC020005422019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 208/2019

¶5

1:ASANGLA AIER AND 2 ORS W/O LT. I. PANGER JAMIR, MOTOR DRIVER,VILLAGE GUARDS, TUENSANG

¶6

2: IMLIENLA JAMIR

¶7

D/O LT. I. PANGER JAMIR

¶8

MOTOR DIRIVER VILLAGE GUARDS TUENSANG

¶9

3: SENTIJUNGLA JAMIR

¶10

D/O LT. I.PANGER JAMIR MOTOR DRIVER VILLAGE GUARDS TUENSAN

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

1:THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS

¶13

THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND, KOHIMA

¶14

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶15

3:THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

4:THE COMMANDANT VILLAGE GUARDS TUENSANG NAGALAND

¶18

5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL NAGALAND KOHIM

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 13-11-2019

¶25

Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Vero, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶26

The petitioner No.1 is the wife of one late I. Panger Jamir and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of the said Late I. Panger Jamir.

¶27

The case projected by the petitioners is that based on a Government approval dated 22.06.2006, Late I. Panger Jamir came to be appointed as Motor Driver (Grade-II) under the establishment of Commandant, Village Guards, Tuensang on casual basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 2750-4400/- pm initially for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 01.02.2006 by an order dated 28.07.2006 issued under the hand of the Commandant, Village Guards, Tuensang i.e. the respondent No.4. Upon such appointment, I. Panger Jamir joined in the post and the office of the respondent No. 4 maintained service book in respect of the service of I. Panger Jamir. The service of I. Panger Jamir was extended from time to time but he expired on 14.05.2017 leaving

¶28

Page No.# 3/4 behind the petitioners as his dependants. By an order dated 13.08.2019, an order was passed by the respondent No. 4 stating that consequent upon the demise of I. Panger Jamir on 14.05.2017, his name is deemed to have ceased under the service roll of the establishment of respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 14.05.2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Late I. Panger Jamir had rendered 10 years 9 months 16 days of service in the Department but his service was not regularized by the respondent authorities. With the prayer for posthumous regularization of service of Late I. Panger Jamir for the purpose of family pension, the petitioners have submitted a representation before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 02.09.2019 stating that the petitioners are entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 2(3) of the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the service of Late I. Panger Jamir ought to have been regularized in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, whereby the State Government has formulated a scheme for regularization and absorption of Work-Charged and Casual Employees etc.

¶29

The petitioners are aggrieved by non consideration of the representation submitted on 02.09.2019. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this application can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners on 02.09.2019 and to pass an appropriate order within a stipulated period.

¶30

Mr. V. Vero, learned State counsel has submitted that he has no objection if such a direction is made.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and find it appropriate at this stage to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State respondents, more particularly, respondent No. 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners on 02.09.2019 and after consideration, a speaking order be passed after ascertaining about the case projected by the petitioners, in accordance with law. The State respondents shall dispose of the said representation within a period of 3(three) months from the date of

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

submission of a certified copy of this order on behalf of the petitioners.

¶34

In terms of the above, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Asangla Aier and 2 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asangla Aier and 2 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reshenaro Vs L. Kire,Ifs and Anr.

Temsuwabang Longchar Vs the State of Nagaland

Lipongla Vs the State of Nagaland

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Selipi Sangtam and Anr.

Temsuinla Vs the State of Nagaland

Limatoshi Vs the State of Nagaland and Anr.