SMT. KIRENPENLA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner 's son Lt.Tiamongba Ao while serving as Constable in 'C ' Coy 4BN NAP Thizama, Kohima Nagaland was detailed for protection of Rangapahar Reserve Forest, Dimapur. On the evening of 23/2/1989, the petitioner 's son was run over and killed by one of the logger truck bearing registration No.NLH-1769 (Tata). After the death of the petitioner 's son, the petitioner applied for family pension and other service benefits. However, the same was not considered by the respondents therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.179(K)/2008 before this Court and by judgment and order dated 12/10/2009, the same was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority by filing a fresh representation along with necessary documents for settlement of family pension of the deceased son. It was also directed that the respondents shall settle the family pension relating to the death of the petitioner 's son within a period of 6 months from the date of the receipt of the said representation to be filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent Nos. 6 and 8 on 17/11/2009.

(2.) Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. Lucy, learned Sr, Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Yangerwati, learned Standing Counsel, A.G. Nagaland/respondent No.8.

(3.) Mr. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had issued an Office Memorandum dated 22/4/2008 which provides that the Government had taken a decision that with effect from 1/1/1998, the definition of family, for the purpose of grant of family pension shall also include parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child. The Office Memorandum further provides that the order shall be applicable in respect of Government employees who died on or after 1/1/1998. It is submitted that by introducing the cut off date of 1/1/1998 the petitioner is made ineligible to receive family pension. Further, the introduction of the cut off date of 1/1/1998 amounts to class legislation of the homogeneous group of retired employees who died in harness. It is submitted that the same attracts Art. 14 of the Constitution which forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification and therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 22/4/2008 requires interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance in the case of D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 and also in the case of Gotimayum Ongbiekashini Devi Vs. Commissioner/Secretary, Arts and Culture, Govt, of Manipur and Ors., reported in 2005 (2) GLT 173. He submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid two authorities passed by the Supreme Court as well as this Court and therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 22/4/2008 is not tenable in law and therefore, the same should be set aside and quashed.