IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the failure to regularize the deceased's service violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, mandating compliance with the Office Memorandum.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction upon the Respondents for regularizing the services of the husband of the Petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 so that the Petitioner can receive the pensionery benefits as well as family pension.

3. From the materials on record, it is seen that vide an order dated 10.08.1987, the husband of the Petitioner namely Mr. Tsathrongse Sangtam was appointed as work-charged handyman under the establishment of the Executive Engineer (PWD), Kiphire in the scale of pay. Thereupon, the husband of the Petitioner was promoted from handyman to driver vide an office order dated 16.09.1995 in the scale of pay. The husband of the Petitioner thereupon rendered service for 35 years without any interruption and retired on 31.07.2022. Unfortunately, the husband of the Petitioner expired on 03.09.2022.

4. It is further relevant to take note of that the Government of Nagaland had issued an Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 which is a scheme for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees and revision of pay/wages. The husband of the Petitioner in view of the said Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 was expecting that in view of the stipulations contained therein, the case of the husband of the Petitioner would be considered as per Clause 1(ii) without any representation inasmuch as the husband of the Petitioner had completed 30 years of service in the scale of pay on 10.08.2017. However, the case of the husband of the Petitioner was not considered in terms with the mandate of Clause 1(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 till his retirement. Under such circumstances, the husband of the Petitioner had submitted a representation on 12.08.2022 to the Respondent No. 3 so that after his retirement, the husband of the Petitioner would receive the pensionary benefits. The said representation remained unconsidered and the husband of the Petitioner unfortunately as stated above expired on 03.09.2022. Upon the death of the husband of the Petitioner, the Petitioner also submitted a representation on 18.04.2023 which was not considered and as such, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

5. The record reveals that pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 20.07.2023, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 wherein the statements made in the writ petition to the effect that the Petitioner had rendered 35 years of service on the scale of pay as work-charged handyman and later on work-charged Driver was not denied. However, the Respondent Authorities have rejected the case of the Petitioner on the ground of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Case of State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi dated 11.07.2022 wherein posthumous regularization of service of the deceased official was denied. It is therefore the stand of the Respondent Authorities that as the husband of the Petitioner had already expired, the question of granting regularization to the service of the husband of the Petitioner did not arise.

6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record.

7. For deciding the question which has arisen for consideration before this Court, this Court finds it relevant first to deal with the powers conferred upon this Court to direct regularization vis-à-vis the power to issue directions when the State formulate policy for regularization. It is relevant to take note of that in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in (2006)4 SCC 1, two issues primarily fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. First, the right of the employees seeking re