STATE OF NAGALAND Vs. ALEMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

(2.) This intra-court appeal, preferred by the State of Nagaland and others, is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 23/11/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 213/2019 preferred by the respondent as writ petitioner thereby allowing the writ petition. The case of the respondent/ writ petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was appointed as a Work-Charged employee in the scale of pay of Rs.375.00590 in the office of the Town Planning Works Division, Nagaland, Kohima (subsequently renamed as Executive Engineer, Urban Development, Kohima, Nagaland) and was assigned the duty of Chowkidar. He continued to serve until his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30/11/2018. The respondent/ writ petitioner had served for 26 years 10 months and 28 days until his retirement, without any break but his service was not regularised, as a result of which, after his retirement, the respondent did not receive any pension. As such, the respondent had submitted a representation dtd. 20/5/2019 before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Kohima, Nagaland with a prayer for regularization of his service in the post of Chowkidar in the office of Executive Engineer, Urban Development, Kohima and also for payment of pensionary benefits. By the order dtd. 17/10/2019 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Urban Development, the representation submitted by the respondent was rejected on the ground that the said prayer cannot be considered as he had been released from service w.e.f. 30/11/2018. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 17/10/2019, the respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 213/2019 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following direction:

(3.) Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland has argued that the respondent cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right, more so, after he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland further submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was appointed as Work-Charged employee and he continued to serve as a Chowkidar till the date of his retirement. She further submits that the Government of Nagaland had earlier introduced a scheme for regularisation of service of Work-Charged employees vide office memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-67/2001(Pt.) dtd. 22/9/2004 for regularisation of service of Work-Charged employees. Regula-risation of Work-Charged employee under the said scheme could be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, since there were two other (Work-Charge) Chow-kidars senior to the respondent, his case could not be considered under the OM dtd. 22/9/2004. Ms. Suokhrie has also invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of 2022 (4) GLT(SC) 8: State of Nagaland and Ors. Vs. Nishevi Achumi to submit that the respondent in this case was similarly situated as the writ petitioner in that case whose case was also not considered for regularisation since his turn had not came and he was much below in the seniority list. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Single Judge had issued a similar direction to regularise the service of the respondent therein, which was upheld by the Division Bench. However, on an appeal preferred by the State, the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment. According to Ms. Suokhrie the case of the State of Nagaland in the present appeal is covered under the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Nishevi Achumi (Supra) and therefore, this writ appeal deserves to be allowed by this Court.