RONGSENNUNGLA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 2 (two) writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had raised common questions of law and fact and, therefore, were heard analogously. The counsel appearing in both the writ petitions are also same and accordingly, by this common judgment and order, In propose to dispose of the two writ petitions.

(2.) WP(C) No. 242 (K) 02 hasd been filed by 34 writ petitioners and WP (C) No. 251 (K) 02 has been filed by 48 writ petitioners. The case of the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions is that they are all ministerial staff serving in the Department of Wasteland Develoment, which was created by Notification No. AR/O &M/2/93 dated 14.09.93 and the Department was manned by the Officers and staff who were sent on deputation from the Department of Agriculture and other allied services. According to the writ petitioners, fresh appointments were made in respect of the required ministerial staff. The writ petitioners were working for varying periods. Some of the petitioners were appointed in the year 1994, while some were appointed in the year 2000 also. Some others were appointed in between the aforesaid period ranging from 1994 to 2000. Though in the appointment orders it was indicated that the appointments were made on work charged basis, the petitioners have stated that their work is regular in nature and they were entitled to all benefits of service like regular employees. They were granted scale of pay. It is pleaded by them that the Government of Nagaland had constituted a Commission in terms of "The Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Bill, 2001" (should have been Act instead of Bill) to examine the issue of work-charged and casual employees. The Commission had submitted a report recommending that casual employees in the Department of Wasteland Development may be maintained at 78 numbers and based on the recommendation of the Commission, the Directorate of Wasteland Development had submitted a memorandum for creation of the recommended posts by letter dated 11.03.02. The Cabinet considered the recommendation of the Commission relating to the Wasteland Development Department on 16. 9.02 and it was decided that scale of pay could not be grated to casual employees by virtue of which a decision was taken to deny the petitioners from enjoying scale of pay and to pay them by way of fixed pay. The petitioners have challenged the Cabinet decision of 16.09.02 in Agenda Item No. 10, which is contained in the Office Memor-andum dated 20.09.2002.

(3.) IN have heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. L. S Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. I have also perused the available materials on record.