JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.9. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Smt. Sungmo Chang, impugning the office letter No. ENCP/Legal/WP(C)87(K)/2016/59 dated 30.01.2018 written by the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Power, Office of the Chief Engineer, Transmission and Generation, Nagaland to the petitioner, whereby she was informed about rejecting the prayer for regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner posthumously as well as for payment of pension and pensionary benefits. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, is that, the husband of the petitioner, namely, late W. Wongti Chollen, was a Muster Roll employee and later on he was appointed as Work Charged Jugali, under S.D.O. (E) No. II of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Tuensang, Nagaland. It is also stated in the writ petition that by an office order dated 29.11.1985, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Work Charged employee at a fixed pay of Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three Hundreds only). 4. It is also stated in the writ petition that later on by Office Memorandum No. CEL/A/362/4457/60 dated 27.09.2000, the husband of the petitioner was promoted to Work Charged Jugali on 16.09.2013. His service book was also maintained since the date of his appointment on 29.11.1985. 5. It is stated in the writ petition that on 16.02.2010, the husband of the petitioner died-in-harness when he was detailed to work in the extension of 11 KV 3 Phase Transmission Line 250 KVA 11/4 KVA Sub-station under PMGY Assam Rifles, Nagaland Range, Tuensang, Nagaland. 6. In the year 2016, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 87 (K)/2016 for payment of pension and pensionary benefits and Ex- gratia on account of the death of her husband. 6. In the year 2016, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 87 (K)/2016 for payment of pension and pensionary benefits and Ex- gratia on account of the death of her husband. By order dated 09.05.2017, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Respondents to regularize the service of the husband of the petitioner posthumously for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and also to pay Ex-gratia of Rupees Five lakhs to the petitioner and her children within a period of four months from the date of the order. 7. The State respondents preferred a Review Petition against the aforesaid judgment. The said Review Petition was disposed of on 26.07.2017 by modifying the order dated 09.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 87 (K)/2016 with an observation that the respondents will have the discretion to determine the amount of Ex-gratia to be paid to the petitioner from Rupees One Lakh to Rupees Five Lakh as per the nature of duties of the deceased government servant. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2017, passed in the Review Petition No. 9(K)/2017, the present petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal registered as Writ Appeal No. 19(K)/2017. The State respondent also preferred a writ appeal against the said judgment and the same was registered as Writ Appeal No. 20(K)/2017. Since both the writ appeals were directed against the common judgment, hence, both the writ appeals, along with two other writ appeals, namely, Writ Appeal No. 22(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 23(K)/2017, were disposed of by a common judgment dated 24.11.2017. 9. It was directed by the Court in the aforesaid judgment that the case of the present petitioner along with other writ appellants should be considered by the State respondents for regularization one day prior to his death, along with other eligible candidates, for the relevant period of time in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 as amended from time to time. 10. It was also clarified that the said direction would be subject to the availability of regular vacancy during the lifetime of the deceased Work Charged employee and in the event of regularization all entitlements regarding pension and other pensionary benefits will be paid to the writ petitioner. 11. It was further directed that the respondents shall complete the entire exercise within four months of the date of the aforesaid judgment. 12. 11. It was further directed that the respondents shall complete the entire exercise within four months of the date of the aforesaid judgment. 12. Accordingly, on 18.04.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner had served notice to the respondents along with the order dated 24.11.2017 passed in the Writ Appeal No.19(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No.20(K)/2017 with a request to comply with the directions of the Court. However, by the impugned office letter dated 30.01.2018, the petitioner was informed that the department has examined the petitioner’s case and has arrived at the finding that the case of her husband is not covered under the purview of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Notification dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015 and accordingly, the prayer for regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner was rejected. 13. Mr. Imti Longchar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned letter dated 30.01.1998 written by the Engineer in Chief, Department of Power, Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Transmission and Generation, Nagaland is illegal and against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.11.2017 passed in the aforementioned Writ Appeals. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 and since the date of his appointment till his death in harness, he had completed 24 years of dedicated service and depriving the petitioner of the pensionary benefits would be against the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. He also submits that since the husband of the petitioner had died-in-harness after rendering 24 long years of service and since he was promoted to the post of Work Charged Jugali in the scale of pay by order dated 27.09.2000, he should be treated as a permanent employee in view of the provisions of FR 9 Clause (13), which provides that an officer promoted on a regular basis (through a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and following the prescribed procedure), such a person will have all the benefits that a person confirmed in that grade even if they haven’t gone through a separate confirmation process. 16. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even if the petitioner is treated as a temporary employee, since he died while on duty, he is entitled to extraordinary pensionary benefits under the provisions of Rule 2 of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. 17. He further submits that the petitioner’s husband was appointed on 29.11.1985 and many other employees who were junior to him and who have joined the service much later than him have already been regularized. 18. He also submits that the tentative seniority list of Work Charged Jugali as on 01.04.2008 produced by the State respondent by the Court shows the date of joining of the husband of the present petitioner as 03.09.2000, which is erroneous. He submits that the petitioner’s husband had joined as Work Charged Jugali much earlier i.e. on 29.02.1985. He submits that even the last person at Serial No. 1204, namely, Shri Iminunghsi, who has joined on 06.09.2007, has also been regularized. He, therefore, submits that the impugned letter No. ENCP/Legal/WP(C)87(K)/2016/59 dated 30.01.2018 may be set aside and the respondent is directed to comply with the order dated 24.11.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No.19(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 20(K)/2017. 19. On the other hand, Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government counsel has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was working as a Work Charged employee and his services were not regularized prior to his death, therefore, he may not be treated as a permanent Government servant at the time of his death. It is also submitted that as per the service book of the deceased husband of the petitioner as well as tentative seniority list of the Work Charged staff as on 01.04.2008, his date of joining into service is 03.09.2000. 20. He also submits that the instant writ petition is barred by delay and laches in as much as the husband of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 16.02.2010 whereas she filed the first writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No. 87(K)/2016 after a gap of more than six years, and no justification for such delay has been given by the petitioner. 21. He also submits that the prayer for grant of extra-ordinary pension to the husband of the petitioner is beyond pleadings as there is no whisper about the said relief in the writ petition, therefore, he objects to grant of any such relief to the petitioner. 22. 21. He also submits that the prayer for grant of extra-ordinary pension to the husband of the petitioner is beyond pleadings as there is no whisper about the said relief in the writ petition, therefore, he objects to grant of any such relief to the petitioner. 22. It is also submitted by the learned Government counsel that the State respondents have complied with the order dated 24.11.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No. 19(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 20(K)/2017, in as much as in the tentative seniority list, as on 01.04.2008, the name of the husband of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 989 and as per records his seniority position stands at Serial No. 811 as on 15.02.2010, i.e. one day prior to his death. He also submits that as per the seniority position of the husband of the petitioner, he comes nowhere near the zone of consideration for regularization on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. 23. The learned Government counsel has also submitted that even as per the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, a Work Charged employee who is enjoying the scale of pay may be regularized only if he has completed 30 years or more in continuous service as on 01.01.2015, however, the deceased husband of the petitioner failed to meet this criteria, therefore, he is beyond the purview of Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. 24. The learned Government counsel, therefore, submits that the case of the husband of the petitioner does not come within the purview of either Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 or Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 even for posthumous regularization. He submits that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence, he prays for dismissing the instant writ petition. 25. Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.9 has submitted that the relief prayed for by the petitioner for payment of pension falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the State respondents and the respondent No.9 is only a pension authorizing agency that authorizes pension under the CCS Pension Rules in respect of those employees only whose cases are forwarded by the State Government. He submits that in the instant case as the Government has not sanctioned the pension of the deceased husband of the petitioner, therefore, the respondent No. 9 does not have any role in this case. 26. He submits that in the instant case as the Government has not sanctioned the pension of the deceased husband of the petitioner, therefore, the respondent No. 9 does not have any role in this case. 26. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. 27. We have already discussed herein above that before preferring the instant writ petition, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier also by filing Writ Petition No. 87(K)/2016 seeking Ex-gratia payment on death of her husband as well as for grant of pension and other pensionary benefits. Though, the writ petition was initially allowed by order dated 09.05.2017 directing the State respondents to regularize the service of the husband of the petitioner posthumously for the purpose of the payment of pension and pensionary benefits as well as Ex-gratia payments, however, the said judgment was reviewed and was modified. Against the judgment in review, both the petitioner and the Government preferred separate Writ Appeals which were disposed of by common judgment dated 24.11.2017. It also appears that by the judgment passed in above mentioned Writ Appeals, the State respondents were directed to consider the regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner one day prior to his death in terms of Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. However, it was clarified that the said exercise would be subject to the availability of regular vacancy during the life time of husband of the petitioner. 28. If we consider the submissions of learned Government counsel as well as go through the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, it appears that the State respondent did undertook the exercise for consideration of the case of husband of the petitioner in pursuant to the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No. 19(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 20(K)/2017. However, as per the tentative seniority list of Work Charged staff available with the Government as on 01.04.2008, the seniority of the husband of the petitioner one day before his death, i.e., on 15.02.2010 was assessed to be at Serial No. 811. However, as per the tentative seniority list of Work Charged staff available with the Government as on 01.04.2008, the seniority of the husband of the petitioner one day before his death, i.e., on 15.02.2010 was assessed to be at Serial No. 811. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.11.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No. 19(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 20(K)/2017 had directed the State respondent only to consider the case of the husband of the petitioner in terms of Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. 29. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Office Memorandum provides as follows: “(iv) Work charged employees will have the right to be considered first for regularization against 50% of all future vacancy of similar nature in the department for which they possess requisite qualification, such consideration will be considered on the basis of seniority cum merit. This means that the senior most work charged employee in the relevant category will be regularized subject to his/her fitness for the vacant post”. Thus, for applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 in case of the husband of the petitioner on 15.02.2010, i.e., one day prior to the date of his death, there would be requirement of at least 1622 regular vacancies of similar nature in the department as the seniority of the husband of the petitioner in the tentative seniority list as on that day was found to be at serial No. 811. As such vacancies were not available in the department on the said date (i.e. 15.02.2010), the services of the husband of the petitioner could not be regularized in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. 30. This Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.11.2017, passed in Writ Appeal No. 19(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 20(K)/2017, had only directed the State respondent to consider the case of the husband of the petitioner in terms of Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. It had not directed the regularization simpliciter of the service of the husband of the petitioner. The regularization was directed only in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 and not at all cost. 31. It had not directed the regularization simpliciter of the service of the husband of the petitioner. The regularization was directed only in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 and not at all cost. 31. We have seen that as per the seniority of the husband of the petitioner in tentative seniority list of Work Charged employees as on 01.04.2008 available with the Government, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. Hence, this Court finds that the State respondents were not at fault as it has only complied with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.11.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No. 19(K)/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 20(K)/2017 and in doing so it was found that the husband of the petitioner is not entitled to regularization on 15.02.2010, i.e., one day prior to the date of his death. 32. For the aforesaid reasons the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition may not the granted. 33. However, it appears that the petitioner died-in-harness after serving for 24 years and he died while he was on duty in the extension of 11 KV 3 Phase Transmission Line 250 KVA 11/4 KVA Sub-station PMGY Assam Rifles, Nagaland Range, hence, his case may be considered under the provisions of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 as amended till date. The objection raised by the learned Government counsel that the said relief was not claimed in the writ petition and there is no pleading to that effect in the writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court is not of much relevance, as the power to mould the relief, in an appropriate case, is always there with a Writ Court. 34. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the State respondent to consider as to whether the case of the husband of the petitioner falls within the purview of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 as amended till date and thereafter, pass necessary order with regard to the entitlement of the pension and pensionary benefits by the petitioner in respect of her deceased husband under the provisions of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 as amended till date. The respondents are directed to comply with this judgment within a period of four months from the date of this judgment and the same shall be communicated by the State respondent to the present petitioner within the said period. The petitioner shall furnish the certified copy of this judgment to the State respondents for taking appropriate steps in compliance thereof. 35. The Registry of the permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court at Aizawl shall transmit the case record along with a copy of judgment to the Registry of the permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court at Kohima immediately.