JUDGMENT Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This proceeding has been initiated by the petitioner herein seeking a direction requiring the respondent authorities to sanction family pension to the petitioner in the terms of Rule 54 of the Family Pension 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rule 1964'). The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present proceeding are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Constable (Messenger) on ad hoc basis in the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Wireless, Nagaland, Kohima in the pay scale of Rs. 900/- to 1760/- per month with all other allowances admissible vide appointment order dated 01.04.1999. Such order was issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Wireless, Nagaland, Kohima (for short 'Dy. IGP'). 2. In the appointment order, it has been stated that his services on ad hoc basis would be liable to be terminated automatically in the event of his failure to qualify in the medical and physical tests as well as in the event of his failure to undergo the basic drill training in the first chance, made available to him, a copy of appointment order dated 01.04.1999 is annexed as (Annexure 'B') to the writ. For ready reference, the order dated 01.04.99 is reproduced below:- "GOVT. OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE WIRELESS NAGALAND KOHIMA. ORDER Shri Senkalemba S/o. Shri Mesutoba of Aliba village, P.O. and P.S. Mokokchung, district Mokokchung, Nagaland is hereby appointed as constable (Messenger) on ad hoc in the pay scale of Rs. 900-25-1025-30-1-1445-35-1760/- p.m. with all other allowances admissible under rules from time to time w.e.f. 01.04.1999 subject to qualify in the medical and physical tests and undergo the basic drill training in he first available chance, failing which his ad hoc service will be terminated automatically The appointment is purely on ad hoc and will be terminated without prior notice if his performance is not found satisfactory. In the interest of public service he is posted to WHO Kohima. Dy. Inspector of Police Wireless, Nagaland, Kohima". 3. Soon after his appointment on ad hoc basis, he was sent for training at Central Training Institute, Home Guards, Dimapur (in short CTI, Home Guard). However, due to Christmas and New Year holidays, the training was suspended from 20.12.1999 to 4.1.2000. Dy. Inspector of Police Wireless, Nagaland, Kohima". 3. Soon after his appointment on ad hoc basis, he was sent for training at Central Training Institute, Home Guards, Dimapur (in short CTI, Home Guard). However, due to Christmas and New Year holidays, the training was suspended from 20.12.1999 to 4.1.2000. Though the husband of the petitioner was to report for duty on 5th of January, he was kidnapped on 03.01.2000 and remained untraced for some time. However, on 9.1.2000, his dead body was found near Kichutep bus stop under Mokokchung District and thus, his life came to an abrupt end. 4. After joining his service, he was examined by an appropriate medical authority on 15.12.99 and was declared fit and in that connection, a certificate dated 15.12.99 was issued, a copy thereof has been annexed as (Annexure D/1) to the writ petition. Thereafter, a series of petitions were filed by the petitioner/on behalf of the petitioner seeking lump sum ex-gratia as well as extraordinary family pension in terms of the office memorandum dated 06.06.95. 5. Unfortunately, all those proceedings were dismissed on holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the benefits, specified in Office Memorandum dated 6.6.95 since the husband of petitioner did not meet his death on or about 9.1.2000 in the course of discharge of his duty. All those proceedings were filed in between 2005 and 2011. 6. Not being able to get any benefit, specified in office memorandum, dated 6.6.95, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking family pension under Family Pension Rules 1964. All those proceedings were filed in between 2005 and 2011. 6. Not being able to get any benefit, specified in office memorandum, dated 6.6.95, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking family pension under Family Pension Rules 1964. For ready reference Rule 54(1)(a) and 54(2)(aa) of the Rules of 1964 are reproduced below:- "(1) The provision of this Rule shall apply- (a) to a Government servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or after the 1st January, 1964; and (b) to a Government servant who was in service on the 31st December, 1963 and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964, contained in the Ministry of Finance, Office Memorandum No. 9(16)-E.V.(A)/63, dated the 31st December, 1963 as in force immediately before the commencement of these rules." (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies-- (a) after completion of one year of continuous service; or (aa) before completion of one year of continuous service provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service; or (c) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in Chapter V, other than the pension referred to in Rule 37, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to Family Pension, 1964 (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the Table below: Explanation.--The expression 'continuous one year of service' wherever it occurs in this rule shall be construed to include 'less than one year of continuous service' as defined in Clause (aa)". 7. It has been contended that since the petitioner's husband was appointed on 01.04.99 and since he was medically examined on 15.12.99 in terms of Rule 54(1)(a) and 54(2)(aa) of the Rules of 1964, the petitioner is entitled to family pension. 7. It has been contended that since the petitioner's husband was appointed on 01.04.99 and since he was medically examined on 15.12.99 in terms of Rule 54(1)(a) and 54(2)(aa) of the Rules of 1964, the petitioner is entitled to family pension. It has also been stated that though the petitioner's husband died while he was on leave, he may still be treated as on duty and in that connection the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur vs. Union of India, Jammu High Court in OWP No. 1087 of 1997 is relied upon. In Mohinder Kaur (supra), a Govt. employee who died while on leave was also held to be on duty and as such, it was held that the legal representative of the deceased Government servant is entitled to family pension under the Rules of 1964. 8. In Mohinder Kaur (supra), the J & K High Court held in the following manner:- "The petitioner's son a bachelor who belonged to infantry was on casual leave. While riding a scooter he was knocked down by a speeding matador and died. His father had been nominated as the next of kin. The family pension claim was rejected by the CDA (Pension) Allahabad on the ground that the death occurred when the soldier was not on army duty. The same was challenged in the petition. Held, the question as to whether an army personnel on casual leave remains on duty is no longer res-integra. This Court has expressed an opinion that even an employee on casual leave would be treated as on active duty. In one case the concerned employee had gone to cinema hall for seeing a movie. When he was returning back, he met with an accident. He died. Taking into consideration the relevant rules, a conclusion was arrived at that the dependents of the concerned employee were entitled to the pensionary benefits. An army officer while undergoing recruitment training was granted fifteen days casual leave. He proceeded to his home town. While travelling, he met with an accident. He was not found fit for service and was invalidated out of service. The Madhya Pradesh High Court came to the conclusion that such an officer would be entitled to disability pension as he would be deemed to have been injured while on duty. He proceeded to his home town. While travelling, he met with an accident. He was not found fit for service and was invalidated out of service. The Madhya Pradesh High Court came to the conclusion that such an officer would be entitled to disability pension as he would be deemed to have been injured while on duty. In view of the above, the petitioner is held entitled to family pension. (Order dated 11 Dec. 1998)." 9. According to the petitioner, since the facts and circumstances of the case in Mohinder Kaur (supra) is quite identical to the case of the petitioner, she is entitled also to family pension in terms of Rule 54(1)(a) and 54(2)(aa) of the Rules of 1964. 10. The notice of the proceeding was served on the respondents. They entered appearance and having filed common counter affidavit, resisted the claim of the petitioner stating inter alia that the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted on the grounds more than one. In the first place, it has been stated that the petitioner filed a series of proceedings before seeking lump sum gratuity as well as extraordinary pension on the basis of office memorandum dated 6.6.95. 11. All those proceedings were rejected on hearing both the parties thereto. However, in none of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner had prayed for family pension in terms of Family Pension Rules of 1964. It is well settled that a person is to seek all the reliefs in one proceeding. If he fails to do so, he would be prohibited from seeking such reliefs in subsequent proceedings in view of well established principles of res-judicata. 12. Since the petitioner failed to seek the relief, sought in the present proceeding in her earlier proceedings, she is now, debarred from claiming such reliefs in the present proceeding in view of application for principles of res judicata. On this count alone, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed-argues learned counsel for the respondents. 13. It is also the case of the respondents that family pension can be granted only to a Government servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or thereafter 1st January, 1964 on regular basis. On this count alone, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed-argues learned counsel for the respondents. 13. It is also the case of the respondents that family pension can be granted only to a Government servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or thereafter 1st January, 1964 on regular basis. Since the husband of the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis and since there is nothing on record to show his service was ever regularised, he is not entitled to claim family pension in terms of Rule 54(1)(a) and 54(2)(aa) of Family Pension, Rules 1964. 14. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the respondents have referred me to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana & Ors. vs. Shakuntala Devi, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 380. The relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced below:- "Para. 38. The Scheme in terms of Para. 3 is applicable to all regular employees in pensionable establishments, temporary or permanent, who were in service. Thus, whether temporary or permanent, the employee must be a regular employee which would mean an employee appointed on a regular basis i.e. in accordance with the Rules. Only because services of ad hoc employees were continued, the same would not mean that thereby their status has been changed. It will bear repetition to state that status of an employee can change either by reason of a contract or by reason of a statute. Nothing has been shown to us that the employees concerned either under the contracts of service or under any statute or statutory rules became regular employees of the State. If the scheme did not apply to the respondents, the provisions as to haw the Scheme would be administered are not of any significance." "Para. 39. The contention that the family of an employee would be entitled to the benefit of family pension in the case of the death of a Government employee, if he had completed a minimum period of one year's continuous service without break, cannot be accepted. As stated hereinbefore, an employee must be a Government employee at the first instance. He must be working in a pensionable scheme. He, only in that capacity, should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break which would mean that he must be a temporary or permanent employee". 15. As stated hereinbefore, an employee must be a Government employee at the first instance. He must be working in a pensionable scheme. He, only in that capacity, should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break which would mean that he must be a temporary or permanent employee". 15. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that unless a person is appointed on regular basis and to a cadre post, he would not be entitled to pension in terms of Rule 54(1)(d) of "Rules 1972. In that connection, my attention has again been drawn to the decision rendered in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. (supra). The relevant part is reproduced below:- "Para. 30. In the case of Rama Devi, a contention was raised in the writ petition that the offer of appointment in law was not for a period of six months, but for an indefinite period. Such a contention cannot be upheld. If the initial appointment was for a fixed period and the appointment could be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason, such appointment cannot be said to be an appointment on a permanent post or a temporary sanctioned post. Unless and until the post itself is a permanent or temporary one, the same would not answer the description of a substantive and permanent employment. In this case, it had been shown that the services of Karan Singh were being renewed for a period of six months on the expiry of the original or extended tenure". "Para. 32. Only by reason of fulfillment of the conditions laid down under the contract of service and/or the statutory rules governing the same, can a person become a full-fledged Government employee. When the terms and conditions of service are governed by a statute or statutory rules, no doubt the same would prevail over the contract of employment, but then for the said purpose, the employee concerned must show that the appointment was regular in nature and on a post which is a cadre post. The Government employee acquires status only when he becomes entitled thereto by reason of a statute or by his employer declaring him to be entitled therefore". 16. The Government employee acquires status only when he becomes entitled thereto by reason of a statute or by his employer declaring him to be entitled therefore". 16. Since the husband of the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis and since he had never been converted to a regular employee, the petitioner is not entitled to claim family pension under the Rule 54(1)(a)/54(2)(aa) of the Rules of 1964. 17. It is also the contention of the State respondents that a person can claim to family pension, if he dies after completion of 1 (one) year of continuous service in terms of Rule 54(2)(a) of the aforesaid Rules. However, Rule 54(2)(aa) also enables the legal representative to a Govt. employee who dies before completion of 1 (one) year of continuous service if deceased servant, immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post, was examined by a proper medical authority and was declared fit by such authority for Govt. service. 18. Though the husband of the petitioner had died before completion of 1 (one) year of continuous service, there is nothing on record to show that before entering into the pensionable service, he was medically examined by appropriate authority and was found fit for Govt. job in terms of Rule 2(aa) of the aforesaid Rules. 19. Quite contrary to it, the medical certificate reveals that he was examined after his appointment to the service, and that too, by an authority, who was not the authority having necessary power to examine the husband of the petitioner to give the certificate of the nature aforementioned in the terms of Rule 54(2)(aa) of the Rules of 1964. On this count too, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed--argues learned counsel for the respondents. 20. Now, let us see, whose contention stands to reason in view of the averments, made in the respective pleadings as well as the law holding the field. In regard to the allegation that the present proceeding is hit by principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata in particular, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in terms of the family pension Rules 1964, a person is not entitled to two pensions simultaneously. 21. In regard to the allegation that the present proceeding is hit by principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata in particular, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in terms of the family pension Rules 1964, a person is not entitled to two pensions simultaneously. 21. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim simultaneously "extra ordinary pension" on the basis of office memorandum dated 6.6.95 and "family pension" in terms of Rule 54 of the Family Pension Rule 1965. The petitioner is entitled to claim only one pension at a time. Since the petitioner genuinely believed that she is entitled to benefit incorporated in office memorandum dated 6.6.95, she could not claim for the relief so specified in Family Pension Rules 1964. 22. I have considered such submission in the light of the provision incorporated in Rules 1964 and have found that a person cannot apply for two pensions at a time. Being so, one cannot find fault with the petitioner in not seeking family pension in terms of Rules 1964 in her earlier round of litigations seeking extra ordinary pension and lump sum gratuity. As such, in my considered opinion, the present proceeding is not hit by the principles of res judicata 23. This brings to the next question, where I have to decide if the petitioner is not entitled to claim family pension. On a plain reading of the appointment order, it is found that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. However, the learned counsel for me petitioner contends that the averments made in the appointment order itself show that at the time of his death, husband of the petitioner was no longer an ad hoc employee. Rather, he was holding a post of regular nature for all practical purposes. 24. In that connection, it has been pointed out that in the appointment letter itself, it was stated that his service would be terminated if he could not qualify the medical test and if failed to undergo training at the first available opportunity. However, in this proceeding, one would find that the husband of the petitioner stood qualified the medical test conducted by the appropriate authority. 25. However, in this proceeding, one would find that the husband of the petitioner stood qualified the medical test conducted by the appropriate authority. 25. Equally importantly, he had also undergone physical training at the earliest possible opportunity; however, he could not complete such training as cruel hands of death took him away in the midst of the training for which it needs to be held that the husband of the petitioner had completed the training. Since the conditions, stated in the appointment order stood fulfilled at the time of his death, the husband of the petitioner can no longer be regarded as an employee on ad hoc basis. Therefore, the respondent authorities cannot deprive the petitioner from availing of family pension. 26. I have considered such submission in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State respondents as well as the provisions incorporated in Rule 54(2)(aa) of the Rules of 1964 as well as the decisions rendered in Haryana & Ors. (supra). A plain reading of Rule 54(2)(aa) of the aforesaid Rules reveals that a family pension can also be granted to a person who dies before completing 1 (one) year of continuous service, provided he was examined by appropriate medical authority and provided he was so examined immediately before his appointment to the service and was declared fit for Govt. service 27. But in our instant case, such conditions remained unfulfilled since the materials on record reveal that the petitioner was examined not before the making entry into the service but only after making entry in to the service. Equally important, there is nothing on the record to show that even after making entry in to the service, he was examined by any Medical officer, so referred to in Rule 54(2)(aa) of the aforesaid Rules. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) defines who is an ad hoc employee and who is a regular employee on temporary or permanent basis. According to the decisions rendered in Haryana & Ors. (supra), only regular employees, appointed against permanent or temporary post are entitled to pension. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced below:- "Para. 27. We would begin our discussions with the status of an employee. A Government employee enjoying a status indisputably must be recruited in accordance with the Rules. (supra), only regular employees, appointed against permanent or temporary post are entitled to pension. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced below:- "Para. 27. We would begin our discussions with the status of an employee. A Government employee enjoying a status indisputably must be recruited in accordance with the Rules. The offers of appointment made in favour of the employees in no uncertain terms show that they were appointed on an ad hoc basis. The appointment was not regular, although in relation to the case of Balwant Singh, the names were said to have been called for from the employment exchange. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to what was the cadre strength in the posts which they were appointed". "Para. 28. No material has been brought on record to show that the equality clause contained in Articles 14 to 16 had been complied with. Any recruitment made in violation of the constitutional scheme, as adumbrated therein, as also the recruitment rules framed by the State would render the same illegal and invalid". "Para. 29. The very fact that a regularisation scheme was framed by the State is a clear pointer to show that the employees concerned were not regularly employed. They had sought for regularisation of their service and at least in one case, as noticed hereinbefore, for one reason or the other, the said request was turned down. The validity thereof was not questioned. It attained finality". "Para. 30. In the case of Rama Devi, a contention was raised in the writ petition that the offer of appointment in taw was not for a period of six months, but for an indefinite period. Such a contention cannot be upheld. If the initial appointment was for a fixed period and the appointment could be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason, such appointment cannot be said to be an appointment on a permanent post or a temporary sanctioned post. Unless and until the post itself is a permanent or temporary one, the same would not answer the description of a substantive and permanent employment. In this case, it had been shown that the services of Karan Singh were being renewed for a period of six months on the expiry of the original or extended tenure". 29. Unless and until the post itself is a permanent or temporary one, the same would not answer the description of a substantive and permanent employment. In this case, it had been shown that the services of Karan Singh were being renewed for a period of six months on the expiry of the original or extended tenure". 29. In regard to the status of posts, we may also look into the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Luthra vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1908 . The relevant part is reproduced below:- "27. The Fundamental Rule 9(22) "permanent post" mean a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned without limit of time. Fundamental Rule 9(30) defines "temporary post" as a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time. Temporary posts may be posts created to perform the ordinary work for which permanent posts already exist. Temporary posts may also be temporary addition to the cadre of a service. "Cadre" in Fundamental Rule 9(4) means the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. In the case of temporary addition to the cadre of a service the power of the authorities to create such a post will depend on the provisions of the Rules. Isolated posts may be created for the performance of special tasks unconnected with the ordinary work which a service is called upon to perform. Such temporary posts are treated as unclassified and isolated ex-cadre posts. Here again the power to create the post depends on the provisions contained in the Rules. Where however temporary posts are considered as temporary additions to the cadre of a service the incumbents of those posts will draw their time scale of pay." 30. Coming back to our case, I have found that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever appointed against a substantive post before his death on regular basis. Therefore, in terms of law laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), on this count alone, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. 31. It has been repeatedly held that to get the pension, one must make entry into the service in terms of requirement of Recruitment Rules. Therefore, in terms of law laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), on this count alone, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. 31. It has been repeatedly held that to get the pension, one must make entry into the service in terms of requirement of Recruitment Rules. However, once again, there is nothing on record to show that husband of the petitioner had made entry into the service in terms of the Recruitment Rules. Rather, all available information reveals that such appointment was done through the back door only. It is one more proof of husband of the petitioner being an ad hoc employee at the time of his death offering one more ground as to why the present proceeding needs to be dismissed. 32. In view of what I have discussed herein before and what have emerged there from, I am of the opinion that the husband of the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions, specified in the Rule 54 of 1964 to enable his legal representative to draw family pension on his death. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to claim family pension under the Family Pension Rules, 1964. In the result, the present petition stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed