The State must regularize the services of long-serving employees for pension benefits, as denying such benefits is unreasonable and violates natural justice.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel Mr. Sentiyanger appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Moa Inchen, the learned Senior Government Advocate representing the State Respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for enforcement of the petitioner’s constitutional and legal rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India particularly Articles 14, 16 & 21.

3. The petitioner Shri. Ngukha was appointed as a Work-Charge Semi Skilled labourer bearing Code No.PHK-0660 in the fixed pay of Rs.490/- per month vide Order No.EE/PHE/WC/B1-6/88-89/306-310 dated 05.04.1988. After serving continuously for a period of 29 years 5 months and 26 days, on 30.09.2017, he was released from service on completion of 60 years of age.

4. During the said period of 29 years 5 months and 26 days, many such employees, except the present petitioner, were regularized in service. On 10.08.2021, the petitioner filed a representation to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland, Kohima for regularization of his services for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The same was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.325/2021 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31.03.2022, whereby this Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks. Accordingly, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and dismissed the same.

5. Mr. Sentiyanger has pointed out that in a similarly situated circumstance, this Court in WP(C) No.21/2021 [Shri. Angphei Konyak -versus- The State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.] directed the State respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner of that case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel of both sides.

7. The factual matrix of WP(C) No.21/2021 was that the petitioner was appointed as a Work-Charged labourer in the Department of Public Health Engineering, Government of Nagaland by the Sub-Divisional Officer, P.H.E., Champang, Mon District vide Order No.CGE/PHE/2-3/04-05/334-44 dated 31.08.1984 with a scale of pay of Rs.300/- per month with effect from 01.09.1984 in place of one Shri Angba Konyak who had submitted his resignation. After completion of 35 years of continuous service, the petitioner retired. On 08.08.2019, the petitioner filed a representation to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Kohima, Nagaland to regularize his services. That representation was not considered.

8. Under the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court passed the following order, which is quoted as under:

“7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, when he retired enjoyed, only Rs. 3450/- per month as pay. It is difficult to imagine how he would have struggled all his life to look after his family members. After having led such a life, to let him go empty handed cannot be reasonable. Slavery and forced labor are things of the past but it appears that for some people they still suffer from such practices. Therefore, in similar cases, i.e. WP(C)/241/2021, WP(C)/242/2021, WP(C)/243/2021, WP(C)/244/2021, WP(C)/245/2021, WP(C)/246/2021, WP(C)/247/2021, WP(C)/248/2021 and WP(C)/249/2021, this Court on 24.03.2022 had allowed the prayer of the persons who are similarly situated as the petitioner, and directed the State Government to consider regularization of their services for pension and pensionary benefits.

8. Taking into view the Order passed in those nine Writ Petitions and the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given above, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner, praying for regularization of his service so that he may enjoy pension and pensionary benefits is a legitimate prayer.”

9. The aforesaid order of the Single Bench was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.35/2022 [The State of Nagaland & 2 Ors. -versus- Shri Angphei Konyak] and the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal.

10. The State respondent