IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement to pensionary benefits for long-serving employees, even if initially appointed on a temporary basis, and the obligation of the State to provide minimum benefits for dedicated service.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Likhase for the petitioner. Also heard learned Sr. Government Advocate Mr. Moa Imchen for the respondents.

2. The petitioner Mr. Thsitongse has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ with a direction to the State Respondents to grant regularisation of the petitioner along with all the pensionary benefits and any other order as this Court deems fit and proper.

3. The State Respondents are:

(i) The State of Nagaland arrayed as respondent No. 1 and represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government.

(ii) The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government.

(iii) The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Nagaland, Kohima.

(iv) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B) Kiphire Division.

(v) The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Kohima.

(vi) The Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Finance, Nagaland, Kohima arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.

4. It is submitted that vide Order No. KPE/PWD/APPT/Gr-IV/1987-18 dated 04.06.1987 the petitioner was appointed as work-charged labour with a fixed pay of Rs. 300/- per month under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Kiphire Division (Annexure-A). The petitioner was continuously serving the Department for 35 years without any interruption to the utmost satisfaction of the Controlling Officer/Department and the petitioner was released from service vide Order No. EE/KPE/PW/WC/2020-21/67-72 dated 26.04.2022 w.e.f. 30.06.2022 (Annexure-B). He was serving the Department with the legitimate expectation that he would be regularised before being released from service. He is aggrieved as he had retired from service on 30.06.2022 without being regularised and as such his rights to pensionary and retirement benefits have been deprived to him.

5. On 19.04.2022 the petitioner submitted a representation with prayer for regularisation of his services to enable him to avail the pensionary benefits. There presentation is marked as Annexure-C of the petition. It is averred that similarly circumstanced incumbents have been regularised but the petitioner’s representation was not considered. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by “the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972” and as such he is entitled to pension alongwith other service benefits in view of the standing orders of the Government of India.

6. It is further contended that this Court in similar cases in WP (C) No. 96(K), WP (C) 104(K) and WP (C) 105 (K)/2015 vide order dated 27.03.2015 has disposed the cases with direction to the State Respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services only for the purpose of paying pensionary benefits to the employees (Annexure-D). The petitioner’s case is squarely covered under the “the Central Service (Pension) Rules, 1972” (Rules of 1972 in short) which provides grant of pensionary benefits to temporary government servants retiring on superannuation to invalidation on completion of 10 years of temporary service. The mala-fide of the State-Respondents is writ at large, as the petitioner’s case was not considered at par with other temporary government employees. The petitioner has thus prayed for a direction to the State respondents to regularise his services to enable him to draw the pensionary benefits and other such benefits due to his continuous service to the government for 35 years.

7. Per contra, the State Respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition refuting the allegations of showering undue favour to other similarly circumstanced incumbents. The grievance of the petitioner that he has retired without being regularised has been admitted by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the peti