REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4223 of 2022 
                                                                                               
The State of Nagaland & Ors.             ...Appellants 
Versus
Nishevi Achumi          …Respondent
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1.   Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
Judgment   and   Order   dated   19.04.2021   passed   by   the   High
Court of Gauhati at Kohima in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2019 by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the
said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant – State to
regularize   the   services   of   the   deceased   husband   of   the
1

respondent from one day earlier to his death and thereafter to
pay   the   family   pension   to   the   Respondent,   the   State   has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The deceased husband of the respondent was working as
work­charge   Jugali.     He   died   in   harness   on   28.08.2005   as
work­charge   employee.     That   in   the   year   2017   and   after   a
period   of   twelve   years   from   the   death   of   the   deceased
employee,   the   respondent   herein   the   widow/wife   of   the
deceased   employee   filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   learned
Single   Judge   claiming   that   the   services   of   her   late   husband
ought to have been regularized and therefore, she is entitled to
the family pension.  The learned Single Judge allowed the said
writ   petition   and   directed   the   appellant   –   State   to   regularize
his   services   from   one   day   prior   to   the   date   of   his   demise   so
that   the   respondent   herein   –   original   writ   petitioner   and   her
family members are entitled to pensionary benefits.  
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   the   appellant   –
State   had   preferred   the   appeal   before   the   Division   Bench   of
the   High   Court.     By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the
2

Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said
appeal   and   has   not   interfered   with   the   judgment   and   order
passed by the learned Single Judge regularizing the services of
the   respondent’s   husband   one   day   prior   to   his   demise.
Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court and not interfering with the judgment and order passed
by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   the   State   has   preferred   the
present   appeal.     Though   served   nobody   appears   on   behalf   of
the respondent.
3. Ms.   K.   Enatoli   Sema,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   State   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
directing the appellant – State to regularize the services of the
deceased   employee   one   day   prior   to   his   demise   is   absolutely
unsustainable.  She has made the following submissions:
(i) That   during   his   life   time,   the   deceased   employee
never claimed regularization;
3

(ii) That   the   respondent   ­   original   petitioner   ­   widow
claimed regularization after a period of twelve years
from the death of the deceased employee;
(iii) Even   otherwise   the   deceased   employee   was   not
entitled   to   regularization   even   on   the   date   of   his
death   as   he   was   much   below   in   the   seniority   list
and his turn had not come for regularization;
3.1 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   has
further submitted that assuming that the services of the work­
charge   employee   were   required   to   be   regularized   in   that   case
also   as   per   the   scheme   the   services   of   the   work­charge
employee   were   to   be   regularized   as   per   seniority   and   as   and
when the vacancy arises.   It is submitted that all those work­
charge   employees   whose   services   were   regularized   was   much
after   the  death  of  the   deceased employee  and  that  too  as  per
the seniority.   It is submitted that therefore at the time of the
death   of   the   deceased   employee   he   was   much   below   in   the
seniority list and therefore his services were not required to be
regularized   as   his   turn   had   not   come.     It   is   submitted   that
therefore   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in
4

directing   the   appellant   to   regularize   the   services   of   the
appellant one day prior to his death.
Making   above   submissions   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal.
4. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   State   and
considering the submissions made on behalf of the State and
having   gone   through   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench, we are
of the firm opinion that the High Court has committed a grave
error in directing the appellant to regularize the services of the
deceased employee one day prior to his death.
4.1 It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   deceased   employee
died   in   the   year   2005.     During   his   lifetime   he   never   claimed
any regularization.  That the respondent herein – original writ
petitioner   ­   wife   of   the   deceased   employee   claimed   the
regularization after a period of twelve years from the death of
the   deceased   employee.     At   the   time   of   the   death   of   the
deceased employee he was not entitled to regularization as he
was   much   below   in   the   list   of   the   worked   charge   employees
whose   services   were   to   be   regularized.     Under   the
5

Regularization   Policy   the   services   of   the   work­charge
employees were required to be regularized as per the seniority
and as and when the vacancy arises.  The services of the other
work­charge employees even who were senior to the deceased
employees   were   regularized   in   the   year   2009   i.e.   after   the
death of the deceased employee.   Despite the above, the High
Court   has   directed   the   State   to   regularize   the   services   of   the
deceased   employee   one   day   prior   to   his   death,   which
otherwise   his   services   were   not   required   to   be   regularized   as
his   turn   had   not   come   and   he   was   much   below   in   the
seniority list.
4.2 Considering   the   aforesaid   facts   and   circumstances,   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
unsustainable   and   the   same   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set
aside.
5. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above
present appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the
learned   Single   Judge   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.
Consequently,   the   original   writ   petition   filed   by   respondent   ­
6

wife   herein   stands   dismissed.     However,   in   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
              (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July 11, 2022.
7