STATE OF NAGALAND Vs. SENTIMEREN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Single Bench of this Court passed a common Judgment and Order on 21. 04. 2005 disposing of the WP (C) Nos. 178 (K) 2002, 192 (K) 2002, 205 (K) 2002 212 (K) 2002, 188 (K) 2002, 219 (K) 2002, 208 (K) 2002, 223 (K) 2002, 207 (K) 2002, 215 (K) 2002, 224 (K) 2002, 209 (K) 2002 and 211 (K) 2002 in favour of all the writ petitioners and quashing the order of the Director of Higher and Technical Education, dated 26. 09. 2002, which was challenged in all the said writ petitions, in so far as the writ petitioners were concerned. The impugned order, dated 26. 09. 2002, was regarding the retention and termination of the then existing work-charged and casual employees in the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Nagaland. It was, purportedly, issued on the direction of the State Government, vide its letter No. HTE/1- 32/2001/231 dated 08. 05. 2002, after getting the approval of the State's Cabinet in respect of the recommendation of the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Commission, which had purportedly been constituted following the provisions of Sections 4 and 12 of the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001 on 30. 04. 2001. After ascertaining that the notification issued by the State Government appointing the 1st April, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001 should come into force was published in the Nagaland Gazette on 31. 05. 2001 and that the said Act was published in the Nagaland Gazette on 15. 06. 2001, the learned Single Judge held to the effect that the said Act came into force with effect from 31. 05. 2001 at the earliest and with effect from 15. 06. 2001 at the latest. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, since the Act was not in force when the said Commission, was constituted by the State Government, it was not legally constituted and as such, the said order dated 26. 09. 2002 having been passed on the recommendation of the said Commission, which was found illegally constituted, was not sustainable in the eye of law.

(2.) IN the present writ appeals, the respondents in the above referred writ petitions are challenging the legality of the said common Judgment and Order dated 21. 04. 2005 by which all the writ petitions were disposed of. In short, it is the case of the appellants that the said Act came into force with effect from the 1st April, 2001, which was the date appointed by the State Government as the date from which the provisions of the said Act should come into force as per provisions of Section 1 (3) of the Act and as such, the impugned common order dated 21. 04. 2005 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. L. S. Jamir, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, who submits in support of their case and Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who submits in support of the impugned common Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge. The only point in dispute in between the parties is as to when the said Act of 2001 can be said to have come into force. These appeals are to be decided on the basis of the decision on the said dispute.