The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to interpret beneficial legislation liberally to achieve the legislative intent and uphold the principle of equal pay for equal work.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for the appellants and Mr. Sentiyanger, learned Counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This intra-court appeal, under Chapter VA, Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules, is preferred by the State of Nagaland and two others, challenging the judgment and order dated 11.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.[C] No. 21/2021.

3. It to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2022, learned Single Judge has directed the appellants/respondents to regularize the service of the sole respondent, namely, Shri Angphei Konyak, within a period of 4 [four] months from the date of receipt of the order for pensionary benefits.

4. The background fact leading to filing of this petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“The petitioner was appointed as work charge employee on 31.08.1984, in the department of Public Health Engineering, Government of Nagaland. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.09.2019, the petitioner was released from his service w.e.f. 30.09.2019, on completion of 35 years of service. While he was in service, he had filed one representation on 07.09.2015, for up-gradation of his salary from fixed pay to scale pay, but, the same received no consideration from the respondent authorities. Thereafter, on 08.08.2019, he had filed another representation for regularization of his service. But, due to non-consideration of the said representation, the petitioner had filed one writ petition, being W.P. [C] No. 21/2021, before this Court, praying for a direction to the appellants/respondents to regularize his service. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the petition by directing the State respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner within 4 [four] months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, so that he can enjoy the pension and pensionary benefits, after all those years of dedicated service.”

5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal on the following grounds:-

(i) that, the service conditions of work charged employees are governed by the Nagaland Work-Charge and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001 and Section 12 of the said Act provides for the scheme for absorption of service:- the State Government may draw up a scheme for absorption of service of work-charged employees into regular Government service, and accordingly, the State Government brought forth the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 22.09.2004 and Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. And the OM dated 22.09.2004, provides that 50% of all regular vacancies of similar nature arising in a year is reserved for regularization of work-charged employees and such regularization is to be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and there is no age bar in cases for regularization, if the work-charged employee is below the superannuation age and the OM dated 17.03.2015, provides for regularization of work charge employees who are enjoying scale of pay and who have completed 30 years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015, and the reservation for regularization of work-charged employees stand enhanced from 50% to 67% for the next 5 years, effective form 01.01.2015;

(ii) that, the petitioner does not come under the purview of OM dated 17.03.2015, as during the period of service he is not the senior most employee nor there was any vacancy and as such, his service could not be regularized till the date of his superannuation;

(iii) that, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization under the policy of the Government and the learned Single Judge despite entertained the writ petition, directed the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner within a period of 4 [four] months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order;

(iv) that, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the regularization of the petitioner’s service was no