Gauhati High Court
Smti. Asangla T Aier vs Smti. Thungdeno Mozhui And 10 Ors on 10 February, 2021
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010178392019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/198/2019
SMTI. ASANGLA T AIER
JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK-
KOHIMA, NAGALAND.
VERSUS
SMTI. THUNGDENO MOZHUI AND 10 ORS.
PROJECT DIRECTOR, DRDA, WOKHA, NAGALAND, PIN- 797111.
2:SMT. M. TOSHIMONGLA KICHU
PROJECT DIRECTOR
DRDA
MOKOKCHUNG
NAGALAND
PIN- 798617.
3:SRI MHIESIHULIE BIZO
PROJECT DIRECTOR
DRDA
DIMAPUR
NAGALAND
PIN- 797112.
4:SRI TEMJEN LONGCHAR
PROJECT DIRECTOR
DRDA
MON
NAGALAND
PIN- 798621.
5:SRI TALI YANGER
PROJECT DIRECTOR
DRDA
MOKOKCHUNG
Page No.# 2/4
NAGALAND
PIN- 798617.
6:MS. ACHILA QUINKER
PROJECT DIRECTOR
DRDA
TUENSANG
NAGALAND
PIN- 798612.
7:SRI P. MALAI
RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
DIRECTORATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.
8:MS. ANTI CHANG
DEPUTY PROJECT OFFICER
DRDA
TUENSANG
NAGALAND.
9:THE STATE OF NAGALAND
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
PIN- 797001.
10:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY/ SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
PIN- 797001.
11:THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
PIN- 797001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S S DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, NAGALAND
Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA 10.02.2021 (Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ) Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 8 as well as Ms. A. Aier, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the State respondents.
During the course of hearing this writ appeal, a question has come up as to the exact meaning and connotation of the term "Public Employment" as defined under The Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991. The definition of "Public Employment" under The Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991 is as under:
" (1) 'Public Employment' mean appointment to any pensionable State Public Service or posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Nagaland and the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and includes any appointment under the Government of India, any other State Government, Central or State Public Sector under taking and local authority held by persons prior to their absorption under the Public Service of the State of Nagaland and the Nagaland Legislative Assembly which counts for the purpose of pension."
Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant would argue that in whichever capacity one is working, whether in a Central Government Service, State Government Service or even in a Local Body, one of the important components for public employment service is that he should have worked on a pensionable post.
Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 8, on the other hand, has placed before us a ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.177/2012, in which judgment was given on 20.07.2012 holding that "Public Page No.# 4/4 Employment" would include contract/ad-hoc service as well while computing the period of 35 years of service for public employment.
In case we take a contrary view at this stage, it will be against the finding of the Division Bench. Consequently, we refer the matter to a larger Bench on the following question:
Whether the definition of "Public Employment", referred above, would necessarily mean that a person has worked on a post which was pensionable or will include contractual/ad-hoc service as well, which are non pensionable.
Having made the aforesaid reference, we in the larger interest, also propose that the larger Bench, to which the matter will be referred, will not only decide the above referred limited question, inter alia, but will also decide the case based on their findings on the above question.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant