JUDGMENT :

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.

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 W.P. (C) No. 241/2021, W.P. (C) No. 242/2021, W.P. (C) No. 245/2021, W.P. (C) No. 246/2021, W.P. (C) No. 247/2021, W.P. (C) No. 248/2021 and W.P. (C) No. 249/2021 having served for 35 years and the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 243/2021 having served for 33 years and the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 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 dated 27.03.2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 96(K)/2014, W.P. (C) No. 104(K)/2014 and W.P. (C) No. 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 dated 29.11.1996 passed in W.A. No. 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:

“11. We are being disturbed that the petitioners were compelled to go on superannuation after putting in 28 and 29 years of service respectively without any pensionary and other retiral benefits. In a welfare state like ours committed to a socialistic pattern of society, it is unconscionable that employer compels the employee to go on retirement without any retiral benefits after putting in 28 and 29 years of service on the pretext of contract service. It will be hit by equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petitioners/respondents have spent the entire youthful life to the service of the State rendering valuable services to the State as an Artist. It will be too cruel to allow them to go empty handed when they are aged, old and infirm and incapable of earning by themselves. It is common knowledge that Government servants work for future security. The argument that the writ petitioners accepted the appointment with full knowledge of the terms and conditions laid down in contract and therefore, their services cannot be regularized and they are not entitled pension and other retiral benefits would amount to exploitation of labour. May be the petitioners have knowing fully well the terms and conditions of contract accepted the employment because of compelling circumstances. State, being a model employer are not permitted to use method of exploitation against the weaker section of the people.”

4. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Work-Charged Labours without any sanctioned post, therefore, they cannot be regularized for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that under OM dated 17.03.2015, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Refo