THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Smti. Neiu Chadi, W/O Late Dietholie Chadi - Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Nagaland And Ors - Respondent
WP(C)/21/2024
Decided On : 10-04-2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. L.T. Sangtam, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Nagaland, Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Accountant General, Nagaland and Mr. A. Zhimomi, the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. The petitioner herein, who is the wife of one Detholie Chadi (since deceased) has approached this Court challenging the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 6 in not finalizing the family pension of the petitioner as well as for setting aside a communication dated 18.07.2023 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) of the Office of the respondent No. 6. For the purpose of deciding the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.
3. The petitioner's husband Late Detholie Chadi was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant on adhoc basis in the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Nagaland, Kohima vide an order dated 13.11.1984. Subsequent thereto, his service was regularized vide an order dated 21.11.1986 and in that regard a Service Book was also opened. Vide an order dated 03.11.2004 the petitioner's husband was allowed to officiate in the post of Upper Division Assistant (UDA) and later on vide an order dated 19.08.2010, his appointment was regularized as UDA in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur.
4. The petitioner’s husband continued to serve in the post of UDA and subsequently as UDA-cum-Peshkar in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland till he expired on 09.05.2022. The pension papers on account of the death of the husband of the petitioner were sent to the Office of the respondent No. 6 for finalization of the pension papers. However, the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) of the Office of the respondent No. 6 had issued a communication dated 18.07.2023 raising issues on account of excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay as well as on the ground of overstay. Under such circumstances, the proposal so sent was returned for resubmission.
5. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to take note of certain events which are relevant to the issue pertaining to the impugned communication dated 18.07.2023. The Department of Justice & Law, Government of Nagaland had made the Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in the name and style of “The Nagaland District Court Employees Service Rules, 2017” (for short, “the Rules of 2017”). Vide a Notification dated 08.09.2017 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland, it was stipulated that the said Rules of 2017 shall come into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette. This Notification was duly published in the Nagaland Gazette Extraordinary on 08.09.2017. The service of the petitioner's husband came within the purview of the Rules of 2017 w.e.f 08.09.2017.
6. Subsequent thereto, the Government of Nagaland through its Chief Secretary issued a Notification dated 03.10.2018 whereby the Notification dated 08.09.2017 by which the Rules of 2017 was notified in the Official Gazette was recalled on the ground of non-clearance of the P&AR Department. This Notification dated 03.10.2018 was put to challenge before this Court by an association in the name and style of “All Nagaland Judicial Ministerial Staff Association” which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 192(K)/2018. This Notification dated 03.10.2018 was stayed by a detailed reasoned interim order dated 29.11.2018 by this Court. In spite of the order of stay of the Notification dated 03.10.2018, the respondent No. 2 vide an order dated 23.10.2019 released the petitioner's husband from public service as well as from acquaintance roll w.e.f. 30.11.2019 (A.N.) as the husband
Recovery of excess payments from pensioners is impermissible without fraud or misrepresentation; pension is a right, not a bounty.
Recovery of excess payments from pension dues post-retirement is impermissible without misrepresentation or fraud causing undue hardship.
Withholding gratuity post-retirement without notice or opportunity to contest alleged incorrect pay fixation is impermissible and deemed harsh.
Recovery of excess pension from a family pensioner after significant delay is impermissible without misrepresentation or fraud, violating principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that withholding pension without ongoing proceedings violates legal rights, emphasizing no recovery from retired employees without fraud or misconduct.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.