LAWS(GAU)-2015-3-23

MD NAZIMUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

Decided On March 04, 2015
Md Nazimuddin Ahmed Appellant
V/S
STATE OF NAGALAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears for the petitioner. Ms. S. Mere, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 prays for time to file affidavit-inopposition. Sufficient time has been given to the State respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition since 10-04-2014 and as such, the prayer of Ms. S. Mere is rejected.

(2.) In view of the fact that similar matters have been disposed of by this Court, I also proposed to dispose of this case today. The fact of the case as per the pleadings is that the petitioner was appointed as workcharged Fitter Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs. 205-5-225-EB-6-285-EB-8-325 vide Office Order NO: ZBT/PHE/EE/INVT/EST/-5/83-84 dated 12-04-1983. The petitioner's service was attached to the Office of the Executive Engineer, PHE, Investigation Division, Zunheboto. The petitioner was transferred on the same day to the PHE Sub-Division, Tuensang vide order dated 12-04-1983 and the petitioner joined in his place of posting. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner had elected for revision of scale as per Finance Department order dated 20-01-1985 and that his pay has been increased and revised in his Service Book from time to time.

(3.) The petitioner's further case is that he was issued one membership card for Nagaland Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme as can be seen in Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The petitioner in his writ petition has also stated that he was a member of the contributory Provident Fund Scheme as well as other retirement benefits schemes. The petitioner's further contention is that the condition and benefits of his service clearly shows that he was a regular employee even though his nomenclature was a workcharged employee. The petitioner lastly states that he was asked to retire from his service from 31-03- 2013 on attaining the age of 60 years. Thus the petitioner prays that as he had rendered his service for more than 30 years against a substantive post, the petitioner is entitled to receive pension and all other retirement benefits as he was in all respects to be considered as regular employee.