The court established that a government is obligated to regularize the service of work-charged employees who have rendered long service, particularly when a regular position was not created despite existing policy.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Toshi. O. Longkumer, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ms. Sungjemnungla @ Anungla, who is aggrieved due to non-consideration of her representation to the respondents for posthumous regularization of the service of her late husband, namely, Toshimeren. She has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents for posthumous regularization of the service of late Toshimeren and to provide consequential pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, late Toshimeren was appointed as a work-charged handyman under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Changtongya Electrical Division, Changtongya with a pay-scale of Rs.190-2-226-250/- plus all other allowances admissible under rules from time to time. The petitioner husband died in harness, on 22.08.2011, while serving as work-charged handyman.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during his lifetime, the husband of the petitioner had approached the Department for regularization of his service on several occasions. Though, the services of other work-charged employees situated similar to that of the husband of the petitioner were regularized, however, the service of the husband of the petitioner was never regularized. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner died in harness after rendering 28 years of service as work-charged handyman.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the husband of the petitioner was promoted as work-charged driver on 23.01.2004, however, he was again demoted to the post of work-charged handyman on 01.03.2007.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of her husband, the petitioner had filed a representation, on 27.09.2011 before the respondent No.4 praying for posthumous upgradation of the husband of the petitioner to the post of work-charged driver so that the petitioner may avail pensionary benefits of her deceased husband. However, the said representation was never considered and the petitioner was given assurance that her matter is under consideration.

7. Thereafter, on 23.06.2022, the petitioner had filed another representation praying for posthumous regularization of the service of her late husband Toshimeren. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, the Engineer-in- Chief, Department of Power, Nagaland (respondent No.3) wrote a letter bearing No.ENCP/E-164/Pt-XI/1318 dated 29.06.2022 to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Power, requesting for posthumous regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner for the purpose of providing family pension benefits to the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland by letter bearing No.PWR/ESTT-09/15/217 dated 8^th August, 2022 requested the department to identify the vacant post against which posthumous regularization of the service of late Toshimeren can be facilitated and thereafter, to re-