Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
SUMAN SHYAM, DEVASHIS BARUAH, JJ.
THE STATE OF NAGALAND – Appellant
Versus
ALEMBA S/O LATE MERENKABA – Respondent
WA No. 27 of 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2023
REGULARISATION - WORK-CHARGED EMPLOYEES - NAGALAND WORK-CHARGE AND CASUAL EMPLOYEES REGULATION ACT, 2001; CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICE (PENSION) RULES, 1972 - The court discussed the provisions of the Nagaland Work-Charge and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001, which defines work-charged employees and outlines their entitlements, and the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, which govern pension eligibility. The court interpreted these provisions to conclude that the respondent, having not been regularized and not meeting the criteria for pension under the Rules of 1972, was not entitled to pensionary benefits. The court emphasized that regularization is not a right and must adhere to established criteria.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was a Work-Charged employee serving as a Chowkidar for nearly 27 years without regularization. Upon retirement, he sought regularization and pension benefits, which were denied by the State. The respondent challenged this denial in court, leading to a favorable ruling from a Single Judge, which the State appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria for regularization under the applicable government schemes and that his claim for pension was not supported by the relevant laws. The court noted that the respondent had not requested regularization prior to retirement and that the State had established policies for regularization that the respondent did not fulfill.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to regularization of service and pensionary benefits despite not meeting the eligibility criteria set forth in the applicable government schemes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regularization is not an automatic right and must comply with specific criteria established by the government. The respondent's long service did not exempt him from these criteria, and without regularization, he was not entitled to pension under the Rules of 1972.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, allowing the State's appeal and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent.
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
1. Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. This intra-court appeal, preferred by the State of Nagaland and others, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-11-2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 213/2019 preferred by the respondent as writ petitioner thereby allowing the writ petition. The case of the respondent/ writ petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was appointed as a Work-Charged employee in the scale of pay of Rs. 375-590 in the office of the Town Planning Works Division, Nagaland, Kohima (subsequently renamed as Executive Engineer, Urban Development, Kohima, Nagaland) and was assigned the duty of Chowkidar. He continued to serve until his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30-11-2018. The respondent/ writ petitioner had served for 26 years 10 months and 28 days until his retirement, without any break but his service was not regularised, as a result of which, after his retirement, the respondent did not receive any pension. As such, the respondent had submitted a representation dated 2005-2019 before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Kohima, Nagaland with a prayer for regularization of his service in the post of Chowkidar in the office of Executive Engineer, Urban Development , Kohima and also for payment of pensionary benefits. By the order dated 17-10-2019 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Urban Development, the representation submitted by the respondent was rejected on the ground that the said prayer cannot be considered as he had been released from service w.e.f. 30-11-2018. Aggrieved by the order dated 17-10-2019, the respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 213/2019 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following direction:
The state respondents specially respondent No. 4 shall take steps to regularise the service of the petitioner a day before his superannuation to allow pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The exercise should be completed within two months of the passing of this order.
Writ Petition is allowed and disposed accordingly.”
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23-11-2021, the State of Nagaland has preferred the instant appeal.
3. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland has argued that the respondent cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right, more so, after he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland further submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was appointed as Work-Charged employee and he continued to serve as a Chowkidar till the date of his retirement. She further submits that the Government of Nagaland had earlier introduced a scheme for regularisation of service of Work-Charged employees vide office memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-67/2001(Pt.) dated 22-09-2004 for regularisation of service of Work-Charged employees. Regularisation of Work-Charged employee under the said scheme could be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, since there were two other (Work-Charge) Chowkidars senior to the respondent, his case could not be considered under the OM dated 22-09-2004. Ms. Suokhrie has also invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Nagaland & Ors. Vs. Nishevi Achumi to submit that the respondent in this case was similarly situated as the writ petitioner in that case wh
The right to regularization and pensionary benefits for Work-Charged employees is governed by specific eligibility criteria, and failure to meet these criteria precludes entitlement to such benefits.
The court does not have the power to direct regularization and/or absorption in service unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The petitioner fail....
The court affirmed that the principle of equal treatment in public employment must be upheld, requiring regularization for long-serving employees despite technical non-compliance with bureaucratic cr....
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.
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.
The court established that eligibility for regularization and pensionary benefits must be determined based on the criteria set forth in applicable regulations, and that such benefits cannot be claime....
Employees who completed service requirements must be considered for regularization post-retirement under applicable state policies, including entitlement to benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to regularization in his service against the lowest scale of pay permissible for Grade-IV employees within the PH....
Posthumous regularization of deceased employees is permissible if confirmed under proper authority, whereas previous refusals lack legal sanction and are arbitrary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
