Court reaffirmed that failure to regularize an eligible employee's service constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Justin Magh, 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, Shri Agwenye Magh, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondent authorities for regularization of his service.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a work-charged labour in a fixed pay of Rs. 375/- per month by office Order No. PHE/NC/WC/EST-1/PT-2/90-91/656-41 dated Kohima the 8^thJuly 1991 and was posted as Tesophenyu village. Thereafter, by office Order dated 5^th March 2021, the petitioner’s service was upgraded to work- charged khalashi and he was granted scale of pay at the scale of Rs. 3,000-15,200/- per month with grade pay of Rs. 1,300/- as per Government Administrative Order w.e.f. 01.03.2021. The petitioner has completed 34 years of service and is due to retire from service on 31.08.2026.

4. Mr. Justin Magh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had completed 30 years of continuous service in the month of August 2021 and is eligible for regularization of his service in terms of Office Memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-201/2009 dated 17^thMarch 2015. He submits that in spite of the petitioner being eligible under the aforesaid Office Memorandum to get regularization of his service same was not done by the respondent authorities. He also submits that on 21.11.2022 the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent authorities for regularization of his service; however, nothing was done on his representation.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Respondents had resorted to subterfuge and deceitfully exploited the petitioner by utilizing his services, however, at the same time not regularizing his services though he is entitled to such regularization in terms of the aforementioned Office Memorandum.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has devoted his entire life in rendering service to the State and is due for retirement on 31.08.2026, however, his services are not yet regularized by the Government in spite of having clear policy to do so in terms of Office Memorandum of dated 17.03.2015 and thereby, the State Respondents have violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays for issuance of necessary directions to the State Respondents for regularization of the petitioner’s service.

7. On the other hand, Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate representing the State Respondents has submitted that initially, the petitioner was found eligible for regularization in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 as he has completed 30 years of continuous service and also enjoying scale of pay. Accordingly, the proposal for his regularization was forwarded to the Government, by respondent No. 4 by letter dated 7^th July 2022 and the response of the Government was awaited. However, after the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel at the time of final argument she has informed this court that by letter dated 01.08.2025 addressed to her by the Additional Chief Engineer (PHED), Nagaland, Kohima it has been informed to her that the Finance Department on 21.06.2023 has rejected the case of petitioner, along with 12 other employees on the ground that the extant orders does not permit grant of scale pay to fixed pay work-charged e