Nagaland HC rejects 10-year service bar for invalid pension, directing police to consider retired constable’s disability claim.
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has held that a government employee’s entitlement to invalid pension cannot be denied on the basis of a 10-year service requirement introduced through an office memorandum, directing Nagaland Police to consider the pension claim of a retired constable with 40% visual disability.
Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund passed the order on August 20 in a writ petition filed by Tiazungba Ao, a retired constable of 11th Nagaland Armed Police (IR) Battalion, who had sought invalid disability pension and other service benefits.
Ao was enlisted as a constable in 2008 and served for seven years, seven months and 10 days before being discharged from service in September 2015 on account of his medical condition. He subsequently sought invalid pension, but his representation remained pending.
During the proceedings, the state argued that he was not entitled to invalid pension because a December 2015 office memorandum stipulated 10 years of service for such pension, while Ao had served only about seven and half years. The state also contended that his discharge amounted to resignation and that his medical certificate did not meet the requirements for invalid pension.
Also read: Nagaland: Tribal bodies seek early NH-202 upgrade, completion of pending maintenance
The court, however, held that the office memorandum was inconsistent with Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, which provides for invalid pension where a government servant retires on account of a bodily or mental infirmity that permanently incapacitates the person for service.
The court observed that Rule 38 was silent on any minimum length of service qualifying an employee for invalid pension and held that the executive instruction could not override the statutory rule.
It further noted that the medical board had certified that Ao suffered from 40% visual disability and held that this entitled him to invalid pension under Rule 38.
The court also considered the state's contention that Ao had approached the court after a delay of more than six years. Referring to Supreme Court judgements, it held that pension-related claims involving a continuing wrong could be considered despite delay, particularly where reopening the issue would not affect the settled rights of third parties.
The court accordingly held Ao's claim for invalid pension to be admissible in law and directed the Director General of Police, Nagaland, to consider his representation within four months from the date of the order.