IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pension rules are prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to re-agitate settled causes.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. The petitioner herein had approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s invalid pension and any other service benefits and other consequential interest w.e.f. the date of Administrative Approval and Release Order of the petitioner’s invalid pension without further delay.

I have heard Mr. S. Temjen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

2. The facts involved in the instant case as it appears from a perusal of the pleadings is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Recruit GB Constable against an existing vacancy vide an Order dated 23.08.1993, issued by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion NAP, Teunsang, Nagaland. After the petitioner was appointed as a GB Constable the petitioner was attached to the then Commandant, 3rd NAP Battalion, Tuensang, Nagaland, and was deputed to work under the then Commandant’s supervision to help and support in the domestic household works. Unfortunately, some time in the year 1987, the petitioner’s finger was chopped out at the time of cutting the firewood. It is claimed by the petitioner that the same happened during the course of performing his official duties. The record reveals that the petitioner thereupon applied for invalid pension and on 28.03.1991, the Commandant, 3rd NAP Battalion, Tuensang, had issued the Approval and Release Order to that effect. Thereupon the petitioner approached the said respondents on various occasions for grant of his pension and other pensionary benefits on the basis of his Release Order. Some time in the year 1995, the petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities that on account of the petitioner not having 10 (ten) years of service he would not be entitled to any pension or pensionary benefits. Thereupon the petitioner did not take any further steps and some time in the year 2021, and to be precise, on 29.04.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the State respondents to consider the petitioner’s application for invalid pension and/or other service benefits. However, the same not being granted the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as above stated.

3. The record reveals that this Court, vide an Order dated 06.08.2021 issued notice. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 09.03.2022 stating inter-alia that the petitioner was duly informed as far back as on 1991 itself that he would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits except the General Provident Fund and in that regard an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) and Rs. 7,000/- (rupees seven thousand) were duly paid to the petitioner. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition clearly reveals that the reason why the petitioner has not been granted any pension or pensionary benefits is that the petitioner did not have the length of service of 10 (ten) years. The record reveals that there is an additional affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 pursuant to an Order passed by this Court on 01.05.2023, whereby an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 22.12.2015 was brought on record.

4. This Court has duly taken note of the said OM dated 22.12.2015, which categorically states that for being entitled to an invalid pension under Rule 38 an employee has to have a qualifying service of not less than 10 (ten) years. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court take note of the submissions so advanced by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

5. Mr. S. Temjen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on account of the petitioner being discouraged and sometimes teased, the petitioner was compelled to apply for the invalid pension. He further submitted that the petitioner applied for the invalid pension only on the assurance given by the then Com