MANGI CHANG Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein had approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's invalid pension and any other service benefits and other consequential interest w.e.f. the date of Administrative Approval and Release Order of the petitioner's invalid pension without further delay.

(2.) The facts involved in the instant case as it appears from a perusal of the pleadings is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Recruit GB Constable against an existing vacancy vide an Order dtd. 23/8/1993, issued by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion NAP, Teunsang, Nagaland. After the petitioner was appointed as a GB Constable the petitioner was attached to the then Commandant, 3rd NAP Battalion, Tuensang, Nagaland, and was deputed to work under the then Commandant's supervision to help and support in the domestic household works. Unfortunately, some time in the year 1987, the petitioner's finger was chopped out at the time of cutting the firewood. It is claimed by the petitioner that the same happened during the course of performing his official duties. The record reveals that the petitioner thereupon applied for invalid pension and on 28/3/1991, the Commandant, 3rd NAP Battalion, Tuensang, had issued the Approval and Release Order to that effect. Thereupon the petitioner approached the said respondents on various occasions for grant of his pension and other pensionary benefits on the basis of his Release Order. Some time in the year 1995, the petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities that on account of the petitioner not having 10 (ten) years of service he would not be entitled to any pension or pensionary benefits. Thereupon the petitioner did not take any further steps and some time in the year 2021, and to be precise, on 29/4/2021, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the State respondents to consider the petitioner's application for invalid pension and/or other service benefits. However, the same not being granted the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as above stated.

(3.) The record reveals that this Court, vide an Order dtd. 6/8/2021 issued notice. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 9/3/2022 stating inter alia that the petitioner was duly informed as far back as on 1991 itself that he would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits except the General Provident Fund and and in that regard an amount of Rs.25,000.00 (rupees twenty five thousand) and Rs.7,000.00 (rupees seven thousand) were duly paid to the petitioner. A perusal of the said affidavit-inopposition clearly reveals that the reason why the petitioner has not been granted any pension or pensionary benefits is that the petitioner did not have the length of service of 10 (ten) years. The record reveals that there is an additional affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 pursuant to an Order passed by this Court on 1/5/2023, whereby an Office Memorandum (OM) dtd. 22/12/2015 was brought on record.