Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The constitutional validity, of the provisions of "the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009" ('the Second Amendment Act') has been questioned in the present writ application. By the aforesaid Second Amendment Act State Government employees who have completed 35 years of service have been made liable to retire with effect from 31.10.2009 from which date, the Act has been made operative. The consequential Notification dated 20.7.2009 issued pursuant to the Amendment Act has also been assailed in the writ petition.

2. The essential facts that will be required to be noticed may be set out herein below:

The Nagaland (Retirement from Public Employment) Act, 1991 (Act 3 of 1991) was enacted to come into force w.e.f., 18.6.1991 by which the retirement age of the State Government employees was fixed at 57 years instead of the prevailing age of 58 years. Alternatively, employees who had completed 33 years of service were also made liable for retirement which retirement was to be effective from the afternoon of the last date of the month in which the employee attains the age of 57 years or completes 33 years of service, whichever is earlier. The provisions of the aforesaid Act contained in Section 3thereof were put to challenge before this Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as civil rule No. 364/92. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by the judgment and order dated 18.1.1993 upheld the provisions of the Act in so far as retirement at the age of 57 years is concerned. However, in, so far as the alternative provision for retirement is concerned, i.e., on completion of 33 years of service, the learned Single Judge found the same to be arbitrary and unreasonable as the said provision would entail Government servants retiring at the age of 51 or 52 years. Considering the said age of retirement to be unreasonably low the learned Single Judge interfered with the aforesaid alternative Rule of retirement holding the same to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It will be further required to be noticed that the learned Single Judge did not consider it appropriate to grant any consequential relief flowing from the determination made. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as retirement at the age of 57 years is concerned as well as refusal to grant consequential relief, the writ petitioners carried the matter further in appeal, i.e., writ appeal No. 37/93. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 6.9.1995 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge with regard to the validity of the provisions of the Act of 1991 in so far as fixing the retirement age at 57 years is concerned. However, the Division Bench took the view that on the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to the validity of the alternative Rule of retirement, i.e., after completion of 33 years of service, consequential reliefs ought to have been granted. The Bench, therefore, directed grant of such consequential reliefs.

3. No appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge or that of the Division Bench granting consequential reliefs was preferred by the State. Thereafter, the Act of 1991 was amended by the Nagaland (Retirement from Public Employment) (Amendment) Act, 2007 with effect from 15.11.2007. By the aforesaid Amendment Act published on 15.4.2009, the age of retirement stipulated by Section (3) of the 1991 Act was enhanced from 57 to 60 years. Thereafter, the Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009 was passed by the State Legislature by which Section 3(1) of the Principal Act amended by the. First Amendment Act of 2007 was further amended to provide that "a State Government employee shall hold office for a term of 35 years from the date of joining public employment or until he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier". The Second Amendment Act, it may be noticed, was published in the Official Gazette on 13.8.200