In a significant judgment, the Meghalaya High Court at Shillong has dismissed the State government’s appeal that sought to shift a batch of Junior Divisional Accountants (JDAs) into the New Pension Scheme. The Division Bench, comprising Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee, upheld an earlier Single Bench decision, ruling that these employees remain covered under the older pension framework.
Read also: Tripura High Court slams Railways for delay in land compensation, dismisses revision plea with costs
Background
The case dates back to appointments made in 2008–2009, when 22 individuals were recruited as JDAs under a temporary provision known as Regulation 3(f). Their services were later regularised in February 2021 on the recommendation of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC). However, the regularisation order carried a condition-clause (iv)-that they would be governed by the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (NDCPS), introduced in 2010.
The employees contested this, arguing that their service from 2008 onwards should count toward pension and other benefits under the old system. They pointed to earlier government circulars from 1978 and 2007, which made it clear that continuous service under Regulation 3(f) would be counted once regularised.
Read also: Tripura High Court Orders HSCL to Pay Rs.1.26 Crore to Contractor for Arbitrary Contract Termination
Court’s Observations
The bench heard detailed arguments from both sides. The State’s Additional Advocate General argued that the NDCPS, issued under constitutional powers, had overriding force and therefore applied to anyone regularised after April 2010. “Executive orders have primacy, and the 2021 regularisation letter clearly mandated the new scheme,” he submitted.
On the other hand, senior counsel for the employees stressed that they had been contributing to the General Provident Fund since 2008, and that the government’s own communications in 2013 and 2007 guaranteed continuity of benefits. Forcing them into a new pension regime after so many years, he said, would be unjust and financially damaging.
The court agreed with the employees’ stand. Justice Diengdoh, delivering the judgment, noted that the 2007 and 2013 communications carried Cabinet approval and explicitly allowed 3(f) service to be counted for pension. The sudden insertion of clause (iv) in the 2021 order, the bench said, was contradictory. “Where two conditions are at odds, the one backed by Cabinet decision must prevail,” the bench observed.
The judges also pointed out that the State itself had attempted to correct the 2021 letter during the proceedings, effectively admitting an error. Furthermore, the court cited its own earlier ruling in Aplyne Mary Sunn v. State of Meghalaya (2019), where a similar dispute was decided in favour of employees.
Read also: Telangana High Court Rejects Worker’s Plea to Correct Date of Birth in Age Dispute with Singareni
Decision
Concluding that the old pension scheme applies, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the State’s appeal. “We find no merits in this appeal; the same is hereby dismissed,” the order read.
With this ruling, the affected employees retain their rights under the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983, and the General Provident Fund Rules, 1985. The matter ends at the dismissal of the State’s appeal.
Case: The State of Meghalaya & Ors. vs. Shri Moxadul Amin Mondal & Ors.
Case No.: WA No. 46 of 2024
Decision Date: 26 September 2025