Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 565

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (KOHIMA BENCH)
KUMAR KALITA, J.
Myingthunglo Lotha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 184 Of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. K. Srivastava, Advocate:Mr. N. Z. Lotha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Inaholi, Govt. Advocate

Employees seeking regularization must prove alignment with established criteria and demonstrate identical duties to claim parity in pay under the law.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The petitioner sought regularization of service as a sweeper after 35 years but was denied based on non-conformity to regularization policy and was categorized as a part-time employee. The State's refusal was upheld as the petitioner failed to establish claims for parity in pay or provide necessary documentation of her employment status. (Paras 6, 10, 28-30)

(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - Employees claiming parity in pay must establish identical duties and work conditions. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, and mere assertions are insufficient to support claims. (Paras 26, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was employed as a contingency sweeper from 1984 until retirement in 2019 without regularization and was deprived of benefits and minimum wages as per statutory requirements. (Paras 6, 13)

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the plea for regularization as the petitioner did not fit into the criteria set by the State’s regulations and failed to provide adequate evidence of her working conditions. (Paras 30, 31)

Issues: The critical issues were regarding the petitioner’s eligibility for regularization, the applicability of minimum wage laws, and the claim for parity in pay with regular employees. (Paras 14, 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the burden to prove entitlement to regularization and a claim for equal pay lies with the petitioner, who must demonstrate that her service aligns with more favorable working conditions of permanent employees and conform to prescribed policies. (Paras 26, 30)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. employment background of the petitioner (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner's arguments for service regularization (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. state's objections regarding employment status (Para 14 , 15 , 18)
4. court's findings on employment nature (Para 20 , 21 , 24)
5. legal standards for employment regularization (Para 26 , 28 , 30)
6. final decision: writ petition dismissed (Para 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. K. Srivastava, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. N. Z. Lotha, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Myingthunglo Lotha praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus/any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her service for thirty-five years with effect from 01.08.1984 till 2019 and thereafter to pay her salary due to her in the said rank and position with all other allowances as admissible to a permanent employee and also to grant all pension and retiral benefit as admissible in that position and rank and also to pay arrear of pay and allowances along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date arrears are paid to her.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was employed as a contingency basis sweeper in the Office of the District Sports Officer, Wokha, Nagaland by order No.DPE/EST-N/10/83- 84/961-4 dated 22^nd of July, 1984 at a fixed pay of Rs.300/- per month for a period of six months by the order of Director of the Directorate of School and Physical Education, Nagaland.

4. The petitioner was initially employed for a period of six months with effect from the date of her joining, i.e., from 01.08.1984 till 31.01.1985 and on conclusion of this said period, she was further employed for a period of one year, and thereafter, her services were extended by one year at a time till 2019, when she was released from service on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31^stJuly 2019. At the time of her superannuation, she was getting a salary of Rs.3000/- only per month. In the year 2013, she submitted a representation to the Director of Youth Resources and Sports, Kohima to consider the regularization of her service. The said representation was forwarded by the District Sports Officer, Wokha by forwarding letter No.BSO/WKA/ESTT-3/2011-12 dated 20.04.2013. However, the government, by its letter dated 12.11.2018, rejected the said proposal.

5. Thereafter, again, she submitted her last representation to the respondent authorities in the year 2019 for consideration of her prayer for regularization and release of consequential benefit. However, said representation was also not considered and on attaining the age of superannuation, she was allowed to retire on 31.07.2019 without any pensionary benefit, in spite of the fact that she rendered services for more than 34 years to the State.

6. Mr. S. K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after rendering services for more than 34 years to the state was denied the benefit of regularization, scale of pay and post-retirement benefit, which tantamount to abusing her as bonded labor by the state respondents. He submits that by doing so the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to her by the Constitution of India have also been infringed.

7. He submits that throughout her life the petitioner was even denied the statutory minimum wages which was due to her under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He submits that the state respondent by not acting as per law and by not complying with the requirements of the law has inflicted wrong on the petitioner which has given rise to continuous cause of action for invoking writ jurisdiction and as such this i