JUDGMENT : Yarenjungla Longkumer, J. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner praying for settlement of Family Pension in respect of her late son, W. Imnameren. 2. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the petitioner is the mother/legal nominee of the deceased government employee late W. Imnameren, who died in harness on 24.02.2003, while serving as Overseer Grade II (Civil) under the Rural Development Department, Govt of Nagaland. The petitioner’s deceased son was initially appointed as Overseer Grade II against a vacant sanctioned post on contract basis by the appointment order No.DRD/ESTT-9/85 dated 17.05.1995. Thereafter, by another order No.DRD/RDSO-3/95-96/1068 dated 17.02.1996, the service of the deceased government employee was extended for another term up to 28.02.1997. Thereafter, the contract service of the petitioner’s late son was extended from time to time and while serving as such, the petitioner’s son expired on 24.02.2003. 3. The petitioner’s late son expired when he was still on contract service. However, the respondent No. 3, vide Order No. DRD/ESTT- 9/88 dated 30.10.2003, regularized the contract service of the petitioner’s late son w.e.f 01.05.2000. 4. After the death of the petitioner’s son a succession certificate was also issued in favor of the petitioner empowering her to receive pension and other allowances of her late son by the succession certificate dated 14.11.2003. 5. The petitioner’s son was a bachelor at the time of his death and the petitioner being the legal nominee/heir of her late son, the Department of Rural Development accorded the final withdrawal of Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) by an Order No. DRD/RDSO/PEN- 1/2003 dated 17.02.2004. Subsequently by another order No. DRD/RDSO/PEN-1/2003 dated 26.07.2004, sanction was accorded for leave encashment of 133 days of earn leave to the petitioner in respect of her late son. 6. The Rural Development Department, Govt of Nagaland after completion of all necessary formalities and procedure forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner’s late son to the Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima vide letter No. DRD/RDSO/PEN-01/2003 dated NIL January, 2005. The said pension papers were forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima on 11.02.2005 as indicated by the receipt in the peon book maintained by the Department. 7. After a considerable lapse of time, there was no positive response from the authorities for settlement of the family pension in respect of the petitioner. The said pension papers were forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima on 11.02.2005 as indicated by the receipt in the peon book maintained by the Department. 7. After a considerable lapse of time, there was no positive response from the authorities for settlement of the family pension in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, she submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3 on 31.05.2016 praying for early settlement of the family pension. The respondent No. 3 therefore, forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Accountant General, Nagaland, vide letter No. DRD/RDSO/PEN-01/2003/338 dated 16.06.2016 for necessary action regarding settlement of family pension of the petitioner’s late son. 8. From the letter dated 16.06.2016 of the respondent No. 3 to the Accountant General, Nagaland, it is seen that all the necessary documents and pension papers in respect of the petitioner’s late son had been forwarded to the Accountant General, Nagaland, in the year 2005. The letter dated 16.06.2016 written by the respondent No. 3 indicates that the Accountant General, Nagaland, has not accorded sanction towards the family pension of the petitioner’s late son till 2016 in spite of the fact that all the pension papers had been sent in the year 2005. 9. Having received no positive response for the settlement of family pension, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the Accountant General, Nagaland, in the year 2019 highlighting the grievances about the delay in settlement of family pension and requested the Accountant General, Nagaland, to take necessary follow up action for early settlement family pension. 10. The State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition contesting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s late son died when he was still serving on contract basis and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 also stated that the service of the petitioner’s late son was regularized posthumously on 30.10.2003, i.e., after eight months from the death of the deceased without the approval of the Government and processed at the Directorate level which is not the competent authority. Regularization of all contract services can be carried out only with proper approval of the Government after following due process of law with the concurrence of P&AR Department, the Finance Department and the Public Service Commission. Regularization of all contract services can be carried out only with proper approval of the Government after following due process of law with the concurrence of P&AR Department, the Finance Department and the Public Service Commission. The regularization of the petitioner’s late son without the approval of the Government cannot stand the test of law. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 also stated that there is no record to show that the service of the petitioner’s son was regularized with the approval of the Government and his pension papers were never forwarded to the office of the Accountant General and there is no record at the Government level, whereby the pension papers of the petitioner’s late son was forwarded to the Accountant General. 11. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court had directed the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 vide Order dated 29.09.2024 to ascertain whether the order dated 30.10.2003 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Rural Development Blocks department, posthumously regularizing the service of late W. Imnameren Jamir Overseer Grade II (Civil) has been revoked or recalled by the Government as on date. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by way of an affidavit stated that the issue of illegal posthumous regularization dated 30.10.2003 came to light only after filing of the present writ petition and therefore as the matter was already sub judice before the court, the order has not been revoked or recalled by the department. 12. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 also filed another affidavit in compliance to the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Court directing the learned Government Advocate, to file an affidavit stating as to who is the authority competent to make appointment to the post of Overseer Grade II (Civil) on contract basis. The Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by filing the said affidavit has confirmed that the Director, Rural Development is competent to make appointment to the post of Overseer Grade II (Civil) of contract basis during the period 1995. 13. The respondent No. 4/Principal Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima has filed an affidavit to the effect that there is no record regarding receipt of pension papers of the petitioner’s late son in the office of the Accountant General, Nagaland. Every possible effort was made to trace the documents but to no avail. 13. The respondent No. 4/Principal Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima has filed an affidavit to the effect that there is no record regarding receipt of pension papers of the petitioner’s late son in the office of the Accountant General, Nagaland. Every possible effort was made to trace the documents but to no avail. The respondent No. 4 has also stated on affidavit that the office of the Accountant General has requested the Director, Rural Development to furnish the copies of petitioner’s documents sent vide letter No. PEN/AG/WI/2022-23/449 dated 06.07.2022. It is stated that on receipt of the complete pension documents, the case will be settled. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Wati Jamir, Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Ms. P. Mhonbeni Ezung, appearing for respondent No. 4. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the Director Rural Development is competent to make appointment of Overseer Grade II and the appointment Order dated 17.05.1995 and the regularization order dated 30.10.2003 is still valid and not revoked as on date. Learned counsel submits that even assuming but not admitting that there are lapses in the mode of regularization of the petitioner’s late son’s service, the petitioner should not be made a victim of the lapses committed by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s late son was duly appointed by the Director Rural Development, and regularized by the Director Rural Development. However, the Director Rural Development who is respondent No. 3 in the present petition has turned around and filed an affidavit stating that the appointment and regularization of the petitioner’s son is illegal. 16. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors. Vrs. Rajesh Kumar Basandhi and Anr , reported in (2003) 11 SCC 549, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a party cannot take a stand which becomes contrary to its own conduct. In view of this ratio, the respondents herein cannot take a stand in the affidavit-in- opposition which is contrary to the appointment order and regularization order issued by them. 17. In view of this ratio, the respondents herein cannot take a stand in the affidavit-in- opposition which is contrary to the appointment order and regularization order issued by them. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that unless the regularization order is revoked, the petitioner is entitled to the family pension being the mother of the deceased and the rightful legal heir. Learned counsel further submits that after a period of more than 20 years, the State respondents cannot take a stand now that the appointment order and the regularization order of the petitioner’s late son is illegal or contrary to the rules. Learned counsel prays that the petition may be allowed, and a direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forward the family pension papers of the petitioner’s son to the office of the Accountant General, Nagaland, for further necessary action. 18. Learned Government Advocate, Ms. Inaholi appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has made her submissions relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the other affidavits filed subsequently. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the appointment order of the petitioner’s late son and the regularization order were issued by the Director, Rural Department, who is not the competent authority. Any regularization of contract service can be carried out only with the approval of the Government after following due process of law and with the concurrence of the P&AR Department, the Finance Department and the Nagaland Public State Commission (NPSC). Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner’s son died while serving as contract employee and therefore she is not entitled to any family pension in respect of her late son. Learned Government Advocate relying on the Additional Affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 27.02.2025, submits that the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.1972 at Annexure B to the affidavit clearly states that all cases of appointment in the State to Gazetted and non Gazetted posts, both technical and non technical on contract basis shall be done with prior approval of the Cabinet. The aforesaid O.M. also states that all appointing authorities of the Government of Nagaland shall therefore; comply with the above directions of the Government in all future appointments. The aforesaid O.M. also states that all appointing authorities of the Government of Nagaland shall therefore; comply with the above directions of the Government in all future appointments. The position being such, though the Director was the competent authority to make appointment to the post of Overseer Grade II on contract basis during 1995, prior approval had to be taken from the Cabinet. However, in the present case no such approval was granted and therefore the appointment order of the petitioner’s son as well as his regularization order are illegal and void ab initio. Learned Government Advocate relies on the case of Union of India and Another Vrs Raghuwar Pal Singh reported in 2018 15 SCC 468 to support her contention that when no prior approval of the competent authority is given an act of commission and omission of the then Director Rural Development would therefore suffer from the vice of lack of authority and nullity of Law. Learned Government Advocate therefore, submits that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same may be dismissed. 19. Learned counsel, Ms. P. Mhonbeni Ezung appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that as no pension papers have been received by the office of the Accountant General, Nagaland, the pension papers would be processed as and when the same is received from the office of the Director, Rural Development, Nagaland. 20. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. The court has also gone through the pleadings and the authorities relied upon by the parties. 21. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner’s son was initially appointed on contract basis by the Order dated 17.05.1995. It is also seen that the appointment as Overseer Grade-II Civil was made on contract basis, against a sanctioned post in place of one Shri. Varghese Matthew, Overseer Grade I, who had resigned from service. Thereafter, the petitioner’s son continued to work as such till the date of his demise on 24.02.2003 as a contract employee on the basis on various extension orders from time to time. Subsequently, after his demise the Director of Rural Development, Nagaland regularized the contract service of the petitioner’s son by the order dated 30.10.2003 with effect from 01.05.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner’s son continued to work as such till the date of his demise on 24.02.2003 as a contract employee on the basis on various extension orders from time to time. Subsequently, after his demise the Director of Rural Development, Nagaland regularized the contract service of the petitioner’s son by the order dated 30.10.2003 with effect from 01.05.2000. Thereafter, by the order dated 17.02.2004, the petitioner was sanctioned an amount of rupees 22,192/-(Twenty two thousand one hundred ninety two), being the final withdrawal of Nagaland Group Insurance Scheme. By another order dated 26.06.2004, the Director of Rural Development, Nagaland again accorded sanction for leave encashment of 133 days of earned leave to the petitioner. 22. The Director Rural Development, Nagaland thereafter, forwarded the pension papers in respect of the late Government employee to the office of the Accountant General, Nagaland, vide letter dated NIL January, 2005. The Director Rural Development, Nagaland issued another reminder letter to the Accountant General, Nagaland, vide letter dated 16.06.2016 stating inter alia that the family pension case in respect of the petitioner’s son was duly forwarded to the Accountant General, vide office letter No. DRD/RDSO/PEN-1/2003/364 dated 11.07.2005. However, intimation of settlement for this family pension case had not been received by the department. And therefore, the Director by this letter reminded the Accountant General, office for settlement of the family pension case. 23. The Govt of Nagaland does not have its own pension rules. Hence, it follows the Central Services (Pension) Rules 1972, as amended with adaptations and modifications. When the CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 were notified, they were deemed applicable in Nagaland as well. Section 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 pertains to Family Pension (Section 50 in the CCS Pension Rules 2021). As per Section 54 in the absence of a surviving spouse or eligible children, parents who were wholly dependent on the deceased employee will be eligible for family pension. The Rule also provides that family pension is payable to the family when a government servant dies after completion of one year of continuous service. The family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed to provide relief to the widow or children or dependent parents of a deceased employee or pensioner. The family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed to provide relief to the widow or children or dependent parents of a deceased employee or pensioner. “ FAMILY PENSION- (Rule 54) (Family Pension is payable to the family when a government servant dies:- (i) after completion of one year of continuous service; or (ii) before completion of one year of continuous service: Provided that the deceased member of service 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 (iii) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance 24. From the actions of the respondents it is seen that the petitioner was being accorded all the service benefits as entitled to the family of a regular Government employee after his/her demise or retirement, such as GIS, leave encashment, etc. The petitioner who is the legitimate mother and legal heir of the deceased employee is now an aged woman of about 73 years who has been waiting for the settlement of family pension in respect of her late son since 2003. She had a legitimate expectation for the past more than 20 years due to the actions of the respondents and at this belated stage the respondents cannot turn around and take the plea that the appointment and regularization of the petitioner’s late son was illegal or against the rules. Even assuming but not admitting that there were some lapses on the part of the respondents in not following the proper procedure in regularizing the service of the petitioner’s late son, the respondents cannot make the petitioner suffer for the lapses committed by the authorities. 25. It is pertinent that till the time the writ petition was filed, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not taken any steps to either revoke or cancel the appointment order dated 17.05.1995 and the regularization order dated 30.10.2003. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold, by issuing the appointment order and the regularization order and thereafter stating in their affidavit in opposition that the same were illegal or against the rules. 26. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold, by issuing the appointment order and the regularization order and thereafter stating in their affidavit in opposition that the same were illegal or against the rules. 26. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has been able to make out a case and the petition is hereby allowed with a direction to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forward the family pension papers of the petitioner’s late son to the office of the Accountant General, Nagaland, within 3 (three) months. And the respondent No. 4 shall thereafter, process the family pension papers expeditiously and settle the same in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of.