JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional Advocate General, Govt. of Nagaland for the review petitioners. And also heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This review application No. 08/2022, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), read with Sections 114 of the CPC and Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, is preferred by four applicants, namely, the State of Nagaland, represented by Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland, The Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Nagaland, Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Power, Nagaland, Chief Engineer, Department of Power, Nagaland for reviewing the judgment and order, dated 20.09.2019, passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 202(K)/2017.

3. And review application No. 06/2022 is preferred by the same applicants for reviewing the same common judgment and order dated 20.09.2019, passed by this court in W.P. (C) 237(K)/2018.

4. And review application No. 07/2022 is also being preferred by the same applicants for reviewing the same common judgment and order dated 20.09.2019, passed by this court in W.P. (C) 201 (K)/2017.

5. As all these three review applications are being preferred by the against the same common judgment and order dated 20.09.2019, and the applicants being the same in all three applications and as identical grounds are being taken in all the applications, it is proposed to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order.

6. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition are adumbrated herein below:

“The respondents/opposite parties, in all the three review applications, were initially appointed to different posts, on work charged basis, as Unskilled Labour/Work charged Labour/Jugali in the Department of Power, Government of Nagaland, Kohima on fixed pay. Subsequently, they were granted Time Scale of Pay. The respondents/opposite parties were treated at par with the regular employees holding identical posts, till Revision of Pay Rules, 1993 (ROP Rules, 1993, in short) by virtue of Rule 2(b) of the said Rules. But, they were excluded from the preview of ROP Rules, 1999 onwards.

Thereafter, the services of the respondents/opposite parties were regularized, but, their salaries were fixed at the initial scale of pay without counting the increments and promotional increments, earned under ROP Rules, 1993. Whereas, the contract employees/ad-hoc/provisional employees, who are excluded from the ROP Rules, 1999 and 2010 have been granted the benefits of pay fixation under the said Rules and all other service benefits, such as increment, leave and pension have been granted to the contract employees/ad- hoc/provisional employees.

The respondents/opposite parties in this application, then instituted three Writ proceedings, being W.P. (C) No. 202(K)/2017 and W.P. (C) 237(K)/2018, and W.P. (C) No. 201(K)/2017, seeking following reliefs:

1. To make an observation that the instant petitioners were not appointed and treated as work-charged employees during their work-charge employment as defined by the Nagaland PWD Code and the Nagaland Work-charge and Casual employees Regulation Act, 2001.

2. To make an observation that the Petitioners work charge services cannot be equated with other work charge employees appointed elsewhere.

3. To make an observation that the petitioners services during their work-charge employment were utilized on a regular footing as their regular counterpart.

4. And on the basis of such observations, to partially relax Rule 2(b)(1) of the Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1999 and Rule 2(b)(i) of the Nagaland Services (Revision Of Pay) Rules, 2010, by invoking Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the said Rules respectively for the purpose of notional fixation of pay under Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1999 and 2010 and thereafter, to count the increments and promotional increment earned by the strength of Revision of Pay Rules, 1993.

5. To apply the same yardstick to the peti