IMPORTANT POINT
Timely regularization of services for employees completing 30 years is essential to safeguard their retirement benefits under applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Ms. Lhousino, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. V. Soukhrie, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in regularizing the services of the petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was appointed vide an order dated 09.05.1990 as a work-charged labour in the Office of the Executive Engineer (PHED), Rural Division, Dimapur, Nagaland. After serving for about 26 years vide an order dated 05.09.2016, the petitioner’s services were upgraded from work-charged labour to work-charged Jugali and was granted a scale of pay. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. But the petitioner was not considered by the concerned respondent authorities. However, as the petitioner had already completed 30 years of service and had been also granted the scale of pay, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. It is against the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, the petitioner has therefore approached this Court seeking regularization and other reliefs.

3. It is seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 and more particularly at paragraph No.4 that it is admitted that the petitioner has already completed 30 years of service as work-charged employee in the scale of pay and it is also admitted that the petitioner’s case comes within the purview of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. It has also been mentioned that the case of the petitioner has also been put up to the Government on 19.04.2021 in the 13th phase and clearance has already been given by the P&AR Department on 06.07.2022. Further to that, the case of the petitioner has also been referred to the Finance Department for concurrence. However, the Finance Department has sought for more clarification and the Department is now in continuous correspondence by supplying necessary documents as required by the Finance Department. It is also mentioned that once the Finance Department gives the concurrence, it will be placed before the Manpower Rationalization Committee for its recommendation and thereafter it would be placed before the Cabinet for its approval.

4. This Court finds that in the instant writ petition, the petitioner had sought for other reliefs. However, taking into consideration, that the petitioner having already completed 30 years and the stand of the Respondents the scope of the writ petition have substantially narrowed down.

5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents and have also perused the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. Clause 1 (ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 being relevant, is reproduced herein under:-

1. Regularization in service:

(ii) In respect of those work-charged and casual employees in scale pay and who have completed or will complete 30(thirty) years of continuous service after 01.01.2015, their cases for regularization will be taken up subsequently in two batches as on 1st July and 1st January every year. The procedures and terms and conditions will be the same as laid down in this O.M.

6. From a perusal of the above Clause, it is seen that work-charged and casual employees in the scale pay who have completed or will complete 30 years of continuous service after 01.01.2015, their cases for regularization would be taken up subsequently in two batches as on 1st July and 1st January every year. The procedure and terms and conditions will be same as laid down in Clause 1 (i) of the said Office Memorandum.

7. From th