SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 449

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Z. Zhimomi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. L.T. Sangtam, Addl. A.G., Nagaland, Mr. N. Mozhui, Standing Counsel Mr. A. Zhimomi, Standing Counsel

Recovery of excess payments from pensioners is impermissible without fraud or misrepresentation; pension is a right, not a bounty.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991 - The Nagaland District Court Employees Service Rules, 2017 - Family pension claim - The petitioner challenged the refusal to finalize her family pension following her husband's death, citing wrongful pay fixation and overstay issues. The court found that the husband's service was valid under the Rules of 2017, and recovery of excess payments was impermissible due to lack of fraud or misrepresentation. (Paras 5, 18, 22, 24)

(B) Pension Rights - Pension is a valuable right, not a bounty from the State, and must be finalized without undue delay. (Paras 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s husband served as a UDA and died in harness. His pension papers were returned due to alleged excess payments and overstay.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the objections regarding excess pay and overstay were invalid, directing the finalization of the pension within three months.

Issues: Whether the objections regarding pay fixation and overstay could impede the finalization of the family pension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that recovery of excess payments is not permissible without fraud or misrepresentation, and pension rights must be honored promptly.

Result: The objections were interfered with, and the pension must be finalized within three months.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top