THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS.versusNISHEVI ACHUMI

592                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 592              [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A                   THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS.
                                       v.
                             NISHEVI ACHUMI
                        (Civil Appeal No. 4223 of 2022)
B
                                JULY 11, 2022.
              [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
              Service Law – Family pension – Claim of – Husband of the
C     respondent-wife died in harness as work-charge employee in the
      year 2005 – In the year 2017 i.e. after period of twelve years from
      the death of deceased employee, the respondent-wife filed a writ
      petition and claimed the services of her late husband ought to have
      been regularized and therefore she is entitled to family pension –
      Single Judge of the High Court directed the State to regularize the
D     services of respondent’s husband one day prior to his demise so
      that respondent gets entitled to pensionary benefits – Aggrieved,
      State filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court,
      which was dismissed – On appeal, held: Deceased employee never
      claimed any regularization during his lifetime – Respondent claimed
E     regularization twelve years from the death of the deceased employee
      – At the time of death, the employee was much below in the seniority
      list of work charge employees whose services were to be regularised
      – High Court committed error in issuing direction to regularise the
      services of the deceased employee one day prior to his death –
      Judgment and order of High Court unsustainable and set aside.
F
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4223
      of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2021 of the High Court
      of Gauhati (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal
G     Pradesh) Kohima Bench in Writ Appeal No. 21 of 2019.
            Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
      Advs. for the Appellants.


H
                                      592
  THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. v. NISHEVI ACHUMI                              593


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      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            B
the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the
appellant – State to regularize the services of the deceased husband of
the 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.                                                                       C
       2. The deceased husband of the respondent was working as work-
charge Jugali. He died in harness on 28.08.2005 as work-charge
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        D
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
                                                                              E
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 Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
                                                                              F
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.      G
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         H
594             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     demise is absolutely unsustainable. She has made the following
      submissions:
            (i) That during his life time, the deceased employee never claimed
                regularization;
            (ii) That the respondent - original petitioner - widow claimed
B                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
C                 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 work-charge employee were to be regularized as per
D     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
E     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 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.
F            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.
G
             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
H
   THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. v. NISHEVI ACHUMI                            595


deceased employee he was not entitled to regularization as he was much       A
below in the list of the worked charge employees whose services were
to be regularized. Under the Regularization Policy the services of the
work-charge employees were required to be regularized as per the
seniority and as and when the vacancy arises. The services of the other
work-charge employees even who were senior to the deceased
                                                                             B
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.                                                              C
      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             D
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 - wife herein stands dismissed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                             E
Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by: Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H