Morung Express News
Kohima | September 27
The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, has held that a clear gap in service cannot be overlooked when calculating pensionable service, directing the State Government to reckon an employee’s qualifying years from 1993 instead of 1991.
The case concerned a petitioner, who was first appointed on contract as Computer/Draftsman Grade-I (Civil) in February 1991 under the Works & Housing Department on contract basis for one year. His service was extended but formally terminated on December 1, 1992. After a gap of over a month, he was again appointed on January 15, 1993, as Junior Engineer/Overseer on contract.
While serving on contract basis, the petitioner was selected through NPSC and was appointed as Sub-Engineer (Overseer) Grade-I (Civil) by order on May 25, 1993, under Nagaland PWD.
However, it came to the notice of the petitioner that his length of service was being counted from February 1991. He submitted an application to the respondent authorities requesting rectification, which was then referred to the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&AR).
The P&AR, in two findings dated June 15, 2024, and February 4, 2025, deemed February 1991 as the entry of service in terms of the Office Memorandum dated August 31, 2017, which “prescribed that the service rendered on contract/adhoc/work charged/substitute which is followed by regularisation for regular appointment without break or any gap in service except resignation shall be treated as public employment under the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (2nd Amendment) Act, 2009.”
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Court for relief, contending that the State had misinterpreted the Office Memorandum dated August 31, 2017, in a manner that would lead to his premature retirement. According to him, the authorities ignored the crucial reference to a “break” or “gap” in service and wrongly assumed continuity between his first and second contractual appointments. This, he argued, was a clear error, as the records unmistakably showed a 45-day interruption in his service.
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer, delivering judgment on September 25, noted that the termination order of November 18, 1992, explicitly stated that the contract would end on December 1, 1992. The subsequent appointment order of January 15, 1993, was therefore a fresh engagement. Since the State failed to produce records to show that salary had been paid during the intervening period, the Court accepted that there was a break of service.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009, and the Office Memorandum issued on August 31, 2017. The latter clarified that service rendered on ad hoc, contract, work-charged, or substitute basis may be counted as public employment for pension purposes only if it is followed by regularisation without any break or gap in service, except in cases of resignation. The Office Memorandum further stated that this clarification superseded all earlier circulars.
Applying this principle, the Court held that the petitioner’s earlier contract appointment in 1991 could not be counted towards pension, as there was a documented interruption of over 40 days between the two spells of service. His pensionable service, it ruled, must be computed from January 15, 1993, followed by his regular appointment in May that year.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the P&AR Department’s findings issued in 2024 and 2025 and directed the State to recompute the employee’s service length for pension on the basis of the 1993 appointment.
.jpg)
