The court ruled that breaks in contract employment must be considered for pension calculations, clarifying that service is counted from the date of the last appointment where continuity is absent.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kevi Angami, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents as well as Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. The case of the petitioner in the instant petition is that he was initially appointed as Computor/Draftsman Gr-1 (Civil) under the Nagaland Works & Housing Department on contract basis for a period of one year vide order No.E(II)/G-84/89-90(PT) dated 26.02.1991. After the expiry of one year, the petitioner’s contract service was extended by order No.E(II)/G-84/89-90/(Pt-VII) dated 18.11.1992. The extension order dated 18.11.1992 clearly stated that the petitioner’s contract service was extended upto 30.11.1992 and it also stated that his service would stand terminated w.e.f. 01.12.1992 positively. Therefore, the contract service of the petitioner was terminated in terms of the order dated 18.11.1992 w.e.f 01.12.1992.

3. The petitioner states that after a gap of 45 days, the petitioner was again appointed as Junior Engineer/Overseer/Computer Gr- 1 on contract basis by order No.E(II)/G-84/89-90/(PT-VII) dated 15.01.1993 for a period of 6(six) months w.e.f. 11.01.1993 in the same Department. While serving as such on contract basis, the petitioner got selected through NPSC and was appointed as Sub-Engineer(Overseer)Gr- I(Civil) by order No.E(II)G-46/86(PT) dated 25.05.1993 under Nagaland PWD.

4. In the meantime, it came to the notice of the petitioner that his length of service was being counted from 26.02.1991. Having come to know about this discrepancy, the petitioner submitted application to the respondent authorities and requested for rectification and the same was referred to the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&AR for short).

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the findings of the P&AR Department dated 15.06.2024 and 04.02.2025 to the effect that the date of his entry into service shall be counted from his initial date of appointment i.e. 26.02.1991 in terms of the O.M. dated 31.08.2017 which prescribed that the service rendered on contract/adhoc/work charged/substitute which is followed by regularization for regular appointment without break or any gap in service except resignation shall be treated as public employment under the Nagaland retirement from Public Employment (2nd Amendment) Act, 2009.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the State respondents had misinterpreted the O.M. dated 31.08.2017 which would retire the petitioner prematurely from service. The misinterpretation on the part of the State respondents has occurred due to ignoring of the word “break” or “gap” and by assuming that there is continuity in the service of the petitioner between his first and second appointment on contract basis which is an apparent error as record clearly shows that there is clear break of 45 days in the petitioner’s service and there is no record to show the continuity between these two spells of service.

7. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in view of the break in service for 45 days, the appointment of the petitioner should be counted from the order dated 15.01.1993 for the purpose of pension followed by his regular appointment through the NPSC. The learned senior counsel further su