LAWS(GAU)-2022-3-80

KHIUNGKIU YIMCHUNGER Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

Decided On March 24, 2022
Khiungkiu Yimchunger Appellant
V/S
STATE OF NAGALAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these nine Writ Petitions, which are analogous in the subject matter. I have also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners who were appointed as Work-Charged Labours under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Housing), Tuensang Division, Nagaland, after having served for a period of 35 years, 33 years and 27 years (the petitioners in WP(C)/241/2021, WP(C)/242/2021, WP(C)/245/2021, WP(C)/246/2021, WP(C)/247/2021, WP(C)/248/2021 and WP(C)/249/2021 having served for 35 years; and the petitioner in WP(C)/243/2021 having served for 33 years and the petitioner in WP(C)/244/2021 having served for 27 years) were made to retire on superannuation and released from service by different Release Orders but no pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits were given to them. Being aggrieved, they are here before this Court praying for issuance of a appropriate Writ/Order/Direction, directing the respondents to consider their prayer for regularization of their services for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.

(3.) Mr. Likhase, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted at the very outset that the case of the petitioners are covered by the common Judgments of this Court dtd. 27/3/2015 passed in WP(C)/96(K)/2014, WP (C)/104(K)/2014 and WP(C)/105(K)/2014. Thereafter, he also submitted that the petitioners having served for so many years with such meager pay must not be allowed to go empty handed as that would mean invasion of their rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court dtd. 29/11/1996 passed in WA/102/1995 (In CR No. 434/1990). The relevant portion of the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel is paragraph No. 11. Contents of the same paragraph are given here below: