IMPORTANT POINT
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 claimed retrospectively if the conditions were not met during the employee's service.

JUDGMENT :

KAKHETO SEMA, J.

1. Heard Ms. V. Therie, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Lucy Nsu, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Ms. K. Lily Swu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus and/or any direction or order to regularize the service of the petitioner against the lowest scale pay permissible for Grade-IV employees in the PHE Department, Government of Nagaland, for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that vide order dated 23/05/1984, the petitioner was appointed as work-charge Khalasi in the scale pay of Rs. 300/-(fixed) p.m. under the establishment of the SDO(PHE), Phek, Nagaland.

4. That thereafter by the order dated 24/05/2019, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED, Meluri Sub-Division, Phek, Nagaland, the petitioner was released from service on superannuation on completion of 35(thirty five) years of service. The petitioner was receiving a fixed pay of Rs. 3450/-on the date of his retirement.

5. That pursuant to the petitioner’s retirement from service, the counsel for the petitioner filed the RTI application dated 10/02/2021 before the PIO, Office of the Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland, Kohima, seeking information on the list of the employees who were appointed on work-charged basis by the department and subsequently granted scale of pay, clearly indicating the date of appointment and the date of award of the scale pay. By another letter dated 10/02/2021, the counsel for the petitioner again sought information on the list of the work-charged employees who were regularized by the department clearly indicating their date of appointment and date of regularization.

6. That the information sought in the RTI application was furnished by the department by the letter dated Nil March, 2021 conveying that 380 work-charged employees who were appointed on fixed pay were subsequently grant scale of pay and the service of 195 work-charged employees were subsequently regularized.

7. That on 28/07/2021, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Nagaland, Kohima, for regularization of his service for pension and pensionary benefits, however the same did not evoked any response.

8. Ms. V. Therie, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the information furnished by the department under the RTI Act submits that persons who were similarly appointed as the petitioner as well as those junior to the petitioner have been granted scale of pay as well as regularized in service. However, the petitioner has been indifferently treated and discriminated. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has served the department for 35 years but he was made to retire from service without availing the benefits of the O.M dated 17/03/2015 which is the scheme for Regularization and Absorption of Work-Charged and Casual Employees and Revision of Pay/Wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that similarly situated persons have been regularized in service under the scheme and has been extended pensionary benefits, however the petitioner has been denied of such benefits and discriminated. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of the State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Tsalibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109/2022 on 18.02.2022 and in the case of the State of Manipur & Ors. vs. KSH Ibobal Singh, 1997 (II) GLT 209.

9. Ms. Lucy, the learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner was appointed as fixed pay W/C Khalasi without following any due process of law and against non sanctioned post and therefore no right accrues to the petitioner to be regularized in service despite having served the department for 35 years before superannuating from service.