JUDGMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the writ appellant and Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the private respondents (writ petitioners)as well as Ms. Ajungla Aier, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 8.

2. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made before it by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 10.02.2021 while hearing WA 198/2019 (Smt. Asangla T. Aier vs. Smti. Thungdeno Mozhuin & Others). The matter referred is as follows:

"Whether the definition of "Public Employment', referred above would necessarily mean that a person has worked on a post which was pensionable or will include contractual/ad-hoc service as well, which are non-pensionable."

3. Apart from giving our finding on the question referred to us, the Full Bench has also been called upon to decide WA 198/2019 on its merits. Hence we begin by giving a short background of the case.

4. In the State of Nagaland retirement from public employment is done under a statute, known as the Nagaland Retirement From Public Employment Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), where the definition of "public employment" is as under:

"Definition.

2. (1) "Public Employment" mean appointment to any pensionable State Public Service or posts connection with the affairs of the State of Nagaland and the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and includes any appointment under the Government of India, any other State Government, Central or State Public Sector undertaking and local authority held by persons prior to their absorption under the Public Service of the State of Nagaland and the Nagaland Legislative Assembly which counts for the purpose of pension."

Section 3(1) of the Act, which is the provision for retirement, reads as under:

"Section 3(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule or orders for the time being in force, a person in public employment 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."

5. In other words, a person in public employment can hold office for a term of thirty-five years from the date of joining public employment or until he/she attains the age of sixty years, whichever is earlier. The said provision, which stipulates a fixed term of employment and a particular age for the purpose of superannuation, was challenged before this Court in a number of petitions, where ultimately the validity of the provision was upheld. The matter then went before the Hon'ble Apex Court, where again the validity of such provision was upheld. This was the decision given in the case of Nagaland Senior Govt. Employees Welfare Association and Others vs. The State of Nagaland and Others., (2010) 7 SCC 643. In paragraphs 50 of the judgement, the Hon'ble Apex Court had noticed the peculiar condition existing in the State of Nagaland which had prompted the Legislature to bring such a provision. The purpose was to include as many youth as possible in public employment so that they do not go astray. Nagaland as we know, had witnessed insurgency activities in the past and it was believed that opening of as many possible employment avenues, for as many Naga youths, would be an important step in bringing peace in Nagaland. In other words, there was a purpose, which was in public interest, behind bringing a fixed term for "employment". In paragraph 50 of the judgement, the Hon'ble Apex Court had noticed the peculiar condition existing in Nagaland and said:

"50. We find ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Court. It cannot be overlooked that the whole idea behind the impugned provision is to create opportunities for employment and check unemployment. The impugned provision is aimed to combat unrest amongst educated unemployed youth and to ensure that they do not join underground movement. As observed by this Court in State of Maharasht