JUDGMENT : Soumitra Saikia, J. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner before the Court was appointed as a LDA-cum-Typist w.e.f. 20.06.1998 against an UDA vacancy in the Office of the Advocate General, Nagaland in the Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court on contract basis for a period of four months by order No. LAW-165/71 dated 28th August, 1988. The services of the petitioner came to be extended from time to time. His last extension order was issued on 17.11.1989. Subsequently, the petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 03.03.1993 vide order dated 13.12.2002. The regularization of the petitioner’s services was done after downgrading the post of UDA to that of LDA by the order dated 13.12.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted officiating promotion as UDA by order dated 07.03.2006 and he continued in the said post on officiating basis. The petitioner thereafter, became eligible for the next promotion as he had completed three years as an UDA and accordingly he submitted his representation dated 18.08.2009 praying for consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Asst. Superintendent in the establishment of the Advocate General, Nagaland Gauhati High Court at Guwahati. The representation of the petitioner was put up for consideration only on 07.03.2011, and thereafter, a process was initiated for up-gradation of the post of UDC or creation of the post of Superintendent in the establishment of Advocate General, Nagaland. Upon enquiries made, the petitioner came to be informed that his next promotional post is Head Assistant and not Assistant Superintendent as he was being given the District Scale of Pay and as such the up-gradation can only be done to the post of Head Assistant. The petitioner thereafter, submitted his representation on 22.05.2013 for grant of the Secretariat Pay Scale through proper channel before the respondent No.2, which was also forwarded by the Advocate General, Nagaland. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Advocate General, Nagaland being a Constitutional functionary, the establishment of the Office of the Advocate General, Nagaland is required to be a Secretariat Level Office and as such creation of the post for Establishment of Advocate General in the District Scale of Pay is unheard of is not justified. In an RTI reply received from the concerned department on an application filed by the petitioner. The reply dated 04.09.2005 clearly reflected that the establishment of office of Advocate General, Nagaland falls under the Secretariat Level and therefore, the competent authorities have wrongly granted the District Scale of Pay to the employees of the Office of the Advocate General including to the writ petitioner. By the said RTI reply, the petitioner came to be informed there is no sitting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion of employees under the Law Department since 1998. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 75(K)/2017 before the Kohima Bench of this High Court for confirmation of officiating promotion, maintenance of inter se seniority and promotion in the Secretariat Level Pay Scale amongst other. The writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 02.11.2018, with a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the officiating promotion of the petitioner within a period of three(03) months. The writ petitioner was also permitted to make a further representation regarding his claim of pay scale at par with the Secretariat employees and in the event the representation is filed then the same shall also be considered by the Addl. Chief Secretary of the Government of Nagaland by construing it to be a part of the forwarding letter issued by the Advocate General and further direction that the claim of Pay Scale at par with that of the Secretariat employees be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioners submitted two separate representations dated 21.11.2018 praying for regularization of his officiating promotion and another for granting of the Secretariat Pay Scale before the respondent authorities enclosing the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 75(K)/2017. These representations were followed up by subsequent reminders requesting for early disposal of the representations. When the representations were not disposed of, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being COP(C) No. 30(K)/2019 for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 75(K)/2017. These representations were followed up by subsequent reminders requesting for early disposal of the representations. When the representations were not disposed of, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being COP(C) No. 30(K)/2019 for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 75(K)/2017. Since the two representations dated 21.11.2018 filed by the petitioner and as per the directions of the Court was not put up in the file and considered, the petitioner filed another RTI application seeking copies of the documents and the note sheet of his personal file. The authority concerned, namely the respondent No.2- Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Law and Justice, only provided a few documents of his personal file and refused to share the note sheet of the petitioner's personal file, stating the same to be an invasion of privacy and prohibited under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the first appeal before the appellate authority, which also came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. 6. It is submitted that from the documents made available through RTI, the petitioner came to be aware that the DPC had been convened on 25.09.2019 and in the minutes of the DPC being No. LAW/GEN-8/2019 dated 25.09.2019, it was clearly specified that the officiating promotion of the petitioner in the post of UDA was regularized with effect from the date of the officiating promotion, (i.e. 22.12.2006). However, by regularization No. LAW/GEN-8/2019 dated 27.09.2019, the date of regularization of the petitioner in the post of UDA was shown to be done with effect from the date of sitting of the DPC on 25.09.2019. It is submitted that this regularization order was never communicated to the petitioner and the regularization of the petitioner being given effect to from the date of sitting of the DPC is contrary to the provisions of rule. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contempt petition filed by the petitioner subsequently came to be closed by this Court with the observation that the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 75(K)/2017 was considered to have been complied with. 7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contempt petition filed by the petitioner subsequently came to be closed by this Court with the observation that the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 75(K)/2017 was considered to have been complied with. 7. In the contempt petition, the government had made an averment that by order dated 18.07.2022, the Government of Nagaland had upgraded the Post of UDA to that of Head Assistant in the Office of Advocate General, Nagaland at Gauhati High Court in the Pay Band of Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- per month personnel to the petitioner. While disposing of the contempt petition, this Court held that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2022 it would constitute a separate and distinct cause of action for which the petitioner must have to take a separate course of action and not by way of the present petition. 8. While this matter was being addressed a tentative seniority list was issued on 06.07.2023 by the Department of Law and Justice showing the seniority position of LDA/UDA and Head Assistant. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was shown wherein, the date of entry into service was shown as 17.11.1989 and the date of retirement was shown as 30.11.2024. To the same seniority list, the petitioner submitted his objections stating that the Office of the Advocate General has been placed in the same category as the prosecution wing of the Sub-ordinate judiciary and therefore the establishment of Advocate General should be treated as a separate category distinct from that of the Sub-ordinate judiciary. Thereafter, by an order dated 17.08.2023, the petitioner was released from public service w.e.f. 30.06.2023. The petitioner was paid the salary of July 2023. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner’s service was counted from 17.11.1989 and which is reflected in the website of the Personnel & Administrative Department as well as in the seniority list, which was published by the Law and Justice Department and his date of retirement was reflected as 30.11.2024, therefore, his release from service abruptly w.e.f. 30.06.2024 is completely illegal and contrary to the provisions of rules governing the services. It is submitted that under the rules, if the petitioner's retirement was on 30.06.2023, as informed by the respondents, then he ought to have been given a six months prior notice for submission of his pension papers. It is submitted that the petitioner has been prematurely retired only to harass the petitioner for filing the RTI application seeking the note sheet of his personal file, which the petitioner believes would have reflected that the department has willfully made a false statement in the affidavit filed before the Court in the contempt petition No. COP(C)/30(K)/2019. It is submitted that the petitioner's due date of retirement was on 30.11.2024 if his services are to be counted from the date reflected in the seniority list as well as in the service book, which is 17.11.1989. Therefore, the action of the respondents in releasing the petitioner without the six months prior notice intimating his retirement is contrary to the provisions of the rules and therefore, the same release order ought to be set aside and the petitioner be given his due service benefits. 10. The respondents contested the matter by filing an affidavit. In the said affidavit the respondents have stated that in the tentative seniority list, petitioner’s date of entry and retirement from service was reflected as 17.11.1989 and 30.11.2023 respectively. However, upon examination of the official records, petitioner's entry into service was shown as 20.06.1988, which is evident from the first appointment order as well as the service book. Accordingly, the petitioner was released from public service as well as from the acquaintance role on completion of 35 years of service w.e.f. 20.06.1988 to 30.06.2023. 11. It is submitted that on the basis of the service record, the date reflected in the web portal of the department, which had earlier reflected the date of entry into service as 17.11.1989 stood corrected as 20.06.1988. It is stated that his service with effect from the date of entry was continuously extended from time to time without any gap till his regularization. The respondents have enclosed the extracts of the Service Book with the affidavit along with the joining letter issued by the petitioner submitted to the Advocate General which reflected that his joined services on 20.06.1988. The respondents have enclosed the extracts of the Service Book with the affidavit along with the joining letter issued by the petitioner submitted to the Advocate General which reflected that his joined services on 20.06.1988. The learned Government Advocate referring to the affidavit therefore submits that the claim of the petitioner is that he was in service w.e.f. 17.11.1989 is completely contrary to the documents available on record. The affidavit also encloses a copy of the representation issued by the petitioner to the Additional Secretary, Department of Law & Justice through the Office of the Advocate General to submit that he had clearly stated in the said representation that he had joined in the Office of the Advocate General, in the post of Lower Division Clerk(LDC)-cum-Typist vide order dated 02.08.1988 and that the appointment order was extended from time to time and subsequently by order dated 17.11.1989, he was allowed to continue until further orders. 12. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record carefully perused. 13. The case before this Court in the present proceedings is the purported pre-matured retirement granted to the petitioner by the respondent authority. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 20.06.1988. His last extension order was passed on 17.11.1989 and prior to that there was a clear break in service of about 25 days. According to the petitioner, his date of entry in the tentative seniority list was reflected on 17.11.1989 and his date of retirement was shown as 30.11.2024. As such the petitioner ought to have superannuated from his office on 30.11.2024 instead of 30.06.2023 as have been done by the respondent authorities. 14. During the course of the hearing, the case projected by the petitioner was that although he was appointed on temporary basis for some time but the same service was not continuous as there was a break in service. It was only w.e.f. 17.11.1989 he was in continuous service and subsequently regularized in the post. Therefore, his services, if counted from 17.11.1989, his superannuation would be 30.11.2024. However, the respondent authorities have superannuated w.e.f. 30.06.2024. This has been disputed by the respondent authorities in their counter affidavit by referring the extracts of the service book, where his date of entry into the service has been shown to be 20.08.1988. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court on two occasions. However, the respondent authorities have superannuated w.e.f. 30.06.2024. This has been disputed by the respondent authorities in their counter affidavit by referring the extracts of the service book, where his date of entry into the service has been shown to be 20.08.1988. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court on two occasions. In a writ petition being WP(C) No. 189 of 2020, the petitioner had approached the Court praying for the benefit of Assured Career Progressive Scheme for employees of the Nagaland Government, which the petitioner claims to have not been granted. This writ petition thereafter came to be disposed of on the basis of the submissions made by the Government Advocate that the Government of Nagaland has regularized the promotion of the petitioner to the post of UDA with effect from the date of officiating promotion in that post and in terms of the Corrigendum issued on 05.09.2023, the department will work out and release the financial benefits dues to the petitioner under the scheme as provided under OM dated 28.02.2002 and OM dated 12.10.2010. In respect of the claim of the petitioner that regarding his pay scale to be at par with the State Secretariat employees. 15. On the submission of the learned Government Advocate a similar direction was passed in WP(C) No.131/2023 on 25.04.2024 and it is prayed that like directions may be passed in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to work out and release the financial up-gradation dues to the petitioner under the CPS as provided under the OM dated 28.02.2002 and MACPS as provided in OM dated 12.10.2010 along with all areas. 16. In respect of the claim of the petitioner regarding his pay scale to be at par with the State Secretariat employees the State was directed to take up the case and pass necessary orders as directed by the Court vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in WP(C) No.131/2023. 17. In WP(C) No.189/2020, there is a clear finding by the Court that the petitioner was temporarily appointed for a period of four months with effect from 20.06.1988 and this contract service was extended from time to time and subsequently, by order dated 13.12.2002, petitioner came to be regularized w.e.f. 03.03.1993. 17. In WP(C) No.189/2020, there is a clear finding by the Court that the petitioner was temporarily appointed for a period of four months with effect from 20.06.1988 and this contract service was extended from time to time and subsequently, by order dated 13.12.2002, petitioner came to be regularized w.e.f. 03.03.1993. The extract of the service book enclosed to the affidavit also reflects that the petitioner's date of appointment was shown to be 20.08.1988. That apart, the representations preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Department of Law & Justice, also reflects that he was appointed on 20.08.1988. Therefore, a mere reflection in the tentative seniority list that his date of entry in service is 17.11.1989 and which entry as revealed from the affidavit filed by the respondents was corrected, will not give the petitioner any right. Over and above will not give the petitioner any right in the face of the entries made in his service book as well as the finding of a Co-ordinate bench in WP(C) No.189/2020, which was filed by the writ petitioner himself. Furthermore, in his representations, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed w.e.f. 20.08.1988. 18. Under such circumstances, the mere reflection of a date showing his entry into service in the tentative seniority list will not give the petitioner any vested right, as the said entry in the tentative seniority list also stood corrected. The entries in the service book have not been challenged by the petitioner at any point in time. 19. In view of the discussions above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. 20. No order as to cost.