Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J.
Smti. Toshimenla, M/O Late W. Imnameren - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Nagaland Represented By The Chief Secretary and ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/79/2022
Decided On : 06-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Wati Jamir, P. N. Phom
For the Respondent:Ms. Inaholi, Gov. Advocate, Ms. P. Mhonbeni Ezung
Family pension is payable to dependents of a deceased employee, despite procedural lapses in regularizing service, ensuring beneficiaries are not penalized for administrative oversights.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 226 - Family Pension - Entitlement of family pension sought for the deceased government employee - The petitioner's late son, while on contract service, died; posthumous regularization occurred without prior government approval - Respondent's claims that late son's regularization lacked legality were rejected - Court emphasized the importance of established legal appointments, ruling petitioner entitled to family pension. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Regularization of Service - The court highlights procedural lapses in posthumous regularization; however, it states that these lapses should not penalize the deceased employee's family and authorized the continuation of benefits promised during the service. (Paras 23-25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the mother of deceased W. Imnameren, a government employee who died in service in 2003. While serving in a contract position, his service was regularized posthumously, leading to the claim for family pension.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled there was enough meritorious ground supporting the petitioner, ordering the respondents to process the family pension application expeditiously.
Issues: The main issues include the legality of the deceased's contract status and the validity of the posthumous regularization order affecting family pension rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the regularization if not revoked, must remain valid, asserting that administrative lapses do not negate the legal rights of the deceased's family, cementing the viewpoint that the dependent mother is entitled to the pension benefits.
Result: Petition allowed; respondents directed to forward family pension papers for processing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims pension based on dependency. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. arguments against pension eligibility due to contractual status. (Para 10 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. court recognizes fair expectations despite procedural lapses. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. court orders action on pension processing. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner praying for settlement of Family Pension in respect of her late son, W. Imnameren.
2. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the petitioner is the mother/legal nominee of the deceased government employee late W. Imnameren, who died in harness on 24.02.2003, while serving as Overseer Grade II (Civil) under the Rural Development Department, Govt of Nagaland. The petitioner’s deceased son was initially appointed as Overseer Grade II against a vacant sanctioned post on contract basis by the appointment order No.DRD/ESTT-9/85 dated 17.05.1995. Thereafter, by another order No.DRD/RDSO-3/95-96/1068 dated 17.02.1996, the service of the deceased government employee was extended for another term up to 28.02.1997. Thereafter, the contract service of the petitioner’s late son was extended from time to time and while serving as such, the petitioner’s son expired on 24.02.2003.
3. The petitioner’s late son expired when he was still on contract service. However, the respondent No. 3, vide Order No. DRD/ESTT- 9/88 dated 30.10.2003, regularized the contract service of the petitioner’s late son w.e.f 01.05.2000.
4. After the death of the petitioner’s son a succession certificate was also issued in favor of the petitioner empowering her to receive pension and other allowances of her late son by the succession certificate dated 14.11.2003.
5. The petitioner’s son was a bachelor at the time of his death and the petitioner being the legal nominee/heir of her late son, the Department of Rural Development accorded the final withdrawal of Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) by an Order No. DRD/RDSO/PEN- 1/2003 dated 17.02.2004. Subsequently by another order No. DRD/RDSO/PEN-1/2003 dated 26.07.2004, sanction was accorded for leave encashment of 133 days of earn leave to the petitioner in respect of her late son.
6. The Rural Development Department, Govt of Nagaland after completion of all necessary formalities and procedure forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner’s late son to the Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima vide letter No. DRD/RDSO/PEN-01/2003 dated NIL January, 2005. The said pension papers were forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima on 11.02.2005 as indicated by the receipt in the peon book maintained by the Department.
7. After a considerable lapse of time, there was no positive response from the authorities for settlement of the family pension in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, she submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3 on 31.05.2016 praying for early settlement of the family pension. The respondent No. 3 therefore, forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Accountant General, Nagaland, vide letter No. DRD/RDSO/PEN-01/2003/338 dated 16.06.2016 for necessary action regarding settlement of family pension of the petitioner’s late son.
8. From the letter dated 16.06.2016 of the respondent No. 3 to the Accountant General, Nagaland, it is seen that all the necessary documents and pension papers in respect of the petitioner’s late son had been forwarded to the Accountant General, Nagaland, in the year 2005. The letter dated 16.06.2016 written by the respondent No. 3 indicates that the Accountant General, Nagaland, has not accorded sanction towards the family pension of the petitioner’s late son till 2016 in spite of the fact that all the pension papers had been sent in the year 2005.
9. Having received no positive response for the settlement of family pension, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the Accountant General, Na
