ANGPHEI KONYAK Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Vesutolu Therie, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Work-Charged Labor, in the Department of Public Health Engineering, Government of Nagaland, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, P.H.E., Champang, Mon District, vide Order No. CGE/PHE/2-3/04-05/334-44,dtd. 31/8/1984, with scale of pay of Rs.300.00 (Rupees Three hundred) per month with effect from 1/9/1984, in place of one Shri Angba Konyak, who submitted his resignation. After serving for several years under the same service condition, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Kohima Nagaland (respondent No. 3) on 7/9/2015, praying for upgradation of his pay to scale pay. However, in spite of his request, there was no change in the condition of his service. Being helpless, the petitioner continued in service but while he was on the verge of his retirement, on completion of 35 years of service, he submitted a representation on 8/8/2019 to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Kohima, Nagaland, to regularize his service. But this time also no positive response came from the respondent. Soon thereafter, on 3/9/2019, vid e Order No. EE/PHE/M/EST-3/WC/2006-07/465-70, issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Mon, he was released from service with effect from 30/9/2019, on completion of 35 years length of service, in terms of sec. 3(1) and 3(2) of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009, read with the related Government Notification No. AR3(GEN/174/2007)(Pt), dtd. 7/8/2009. Being aggrieved that his service was not regularized at least for the purpose of enjoying pension and pensionary benefits, the petitioner is here before this Court praying for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction directing the respondents to regularize his service so that he may atleast enjoy pension and pensionary benefits.

(3.) Ms. Therie, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the case of 380 similarly situated persons, the respondents, at one time, had upgraded their monthly pay to grade pay but in the petitioner's case, the same has been denied, therefore, the act of the respondents amount to discrimination. In support of her submission, the learned counsel referred to the information received from the Additional Chief Engineer and PIO for the Department of PHED, in response to the RTI application of the petitioner wherein the names of 380 (three hundred eighty) employees, their designation, date of joining service and date of granting them Grade pay are given. In that, many of them were junior to the petitioner.