Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 334
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Smti. Ruguomenuo, D/o. Shri. LT. Khriesavilie Angami And Ors – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Nagaland And Ors. –Respondent
WP(C) 117 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2026
For the Petitioner: Z. Zhimomi, Lovikato Swu, Kupuli
For the Respondent: Govt Adv. Nl,
Identically situated employees entitled to similar benefits must be treated alike; however, delays in claiming such benefits may negate retrospective applicability.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Claim for regular pay scale - Petitioners, graduate teachers, sought to receive a post creation pay band similar to their counterparts following a precedent set in WA No. 9/2020, which was upheld by the Supreme Court - While entitled to the pay band, the court ruled benefits would commence only from the date of this order due to the petitioners' delay and acquiescence in not claiming the regular pay earlier. (Paras 2, 16-24)
(B) Legal Principles - The court reiterated that identically situated persons must be treated alike to avoid discrimination. However, exceptions based on laches and acquiescence exist, which apply when a party delays claiming benefits that they were aware of for a significant period. (Paras 16-22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were graduate teachers appointed on contract since 2016 and claimed a pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, similar to counterparts in WA 9/2020. Their claim was delayed as they had accepted their fixed salary without objection until seven years later. (Paras 4, 9, 20)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the post creation pay band but only from the date of this order due to their lengthy delay in claiming it. (Paras 23-24)
Issues: The main issue revolved around the entitlement for the post creation pay band and the applicability of benefits either retrospectively or from the date of the current ruling. (Paras 22-23)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while the petitioners were entitled to benefits afforded to similarly situated employees, their lengthy inaction precluded retroactive benefits. (Paras 22-23)
Result: The writ petition was disposed of; payment of the post creation pay band to commence from the date of filing the writ petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement of graduate teachers to pay band. (Para 2 , 9) |
| 2. arguments for similarity in treatment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial precedents on equal treatment. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. determining benefits based on timing of claims. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. conclusion and order regarding payment. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGEMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners’ case is that they are working as graduate teachers and they should be given their Post Creation Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- per month, as has been given to their counterparts in terms of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 9/2020 ( Amos Seb and 434 others Vs. the State of Nagaland and 6 others ), which was disposed of vide order dated 16/03/2022. The petitioners’ further case is that the order dated 16/03/2022 passed in WA 9/2020 was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a SLP and a subsequent review, which was dismissed on 20/05/2025 and 15/01/2026 respectively.
3. The petitioners’ counsel submits that as the petitioners are similarly situated as the appellants in WA 9/2020, they should also be given the Post Creation Pay Band, as has been given to the appellants in WA 9/2020. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case ofState of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in(2015) 1 SCC 347,Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel Vs. Union of India and others reported in2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664 and Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in2025 SCC OnLine SC 2820.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only difference between the appellants in WA 9/2020 and the present writ petitioners is that the appellants in WA 9/2020 had been appointed by the State Mission Director as Graduate Teachers under RMSA on contract basis with fixed pay, while the writ petitioners herein were appointed by the Director of School Education, to work under the RMSA on contract basis with fixed pay. She submits that the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 9/2020 had its genesis in the reduction of the fixed pay of the appellants in WA 9/2020 from Rs. 31,315/- to 25,000/-, while there was no reduction of the fixed pay of the writ petitioners herein, which was also Rs. 31,315/-.
5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that as the writ petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming a similar regular pay scale, as they had been appointed on contractual basis against regular sanctioned posts, in terms of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in WA 9/2020, which was a judgement passed in rem and not in personam, the regular pay scale would also have to be given to the writ petitioners herein.
6. Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, fairly submits that the petitioners are entitled to be given the post creation pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- per month, as has been given to the appellants in WA 9/2020 and as per the letter No. ED/CON/HC-23/2025/09 dated 09/02/2026, issued by the Principal Director, Directorate of School Education, Government of Nagaland. She, however, submits that the benefit of the post creation pay band should be given to the present writ petitioners, only from the date of the judgement and order passed in this writ petition, as they have filed this writ petition only after the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP on 20/05/2025, which challenged the order dated 16/03/2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 9/2020. She submits that the petitioners are fence-sitters, as their claim for regular pay scale has only been made after the appellants claim in WA 9/2020 had crystalised by dismissal of the SLP by t
