Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020004692024 2025:GAU-NL:393 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/173/2024 SHRI KATETSU AND ANR CODE NO. PHK-0689 WORK-CHARGED KHALASI O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED PHEK NAGALAND 2: SHRI NEINCHU CODE NO.0610 WORK-CHARGED KHALASI OFFCIE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED PHEK NAGALAN VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA Page No.# 2/5 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND PHED NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PHED NAGALAND KOHIMA Advocate for the Petitioner : SUPONGWATI WALLING, R ATSULA KIPS Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 26/08/2025 The two petitioners namely, Shri. Katetsu and Shri. Neinchu being petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively had preferred the instant writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by non- consideration of their representations dated 24.06.2024 submitted to the learned Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland, Kohima and the petitioners are also seeking regularization of their services as per provision No. 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. A copy of the said Memorandum of the Government of Nagaland dated 17.03.2015 has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-4 at page 20. 2. The above office memorandum has pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Supongwati Walling lays down the rules and Page No.# 3/5 guidelines regarding the regularization of existing work-charged and casual employees of various departments who are enjoying scale pay and who have completed 30(thirty) years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015. Various other stipulations regarding such process of regularization have been laid down. In this regard point 1(d) and 1(f) are reproduced here in below:- “(d) The post occupied by them on regularization shall automatically stand abolished as and when they vacate the post on retirement, resignation, death etc. The strength of the work-charged and casual employees under various Departments shall stand reduced by equal number concurrently with the regularization of such employees. No fresh appointment shall be made against these posts. (f) The past service rendered as work-charged/casual employee shall be counted towards length of service for the purpose of Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act. 2009 and as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.” 3. It is also stipulated that for all those work-charged and casual employees found eligible, their cases for regularization will be taken up in two batches on 1st July and 1st January every year in terms of the office memorandum. 4. The 4 State respondents represented by Ms. S. Chang, learned Government Advocate have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime the petitioner No. 2 had already been regularized in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 and that the process with regard to petitioner No. 1, namely Shri. Katetsu is under process and the same also finds mention in the affidavit-in-opposition filed the respondents. In this context, both the learned counsels draw my attention to paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Page No.# 4/5 5. It is stated therein that vide office order dated 13.09.2024, the service of petitioner No. 2, namely Shri. Neinchu has been regularized against the post created vide cabinet approval No. CAB-1/14/2023 dated 23/08/2024; w.e.f 02/01/2020. 6. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is contended by the State respondents that the said process of regularization has to undergo certain stages such as P & AR clearance, finance clearance, MRC and cabinet approval. And therefore, the process with regard to petitioner No. 1 could not be completed as yet and that the same shall be done so in terms of the procedure. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in the back drop of the aforesaid development, perhaps this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction for taking the process of petition No.1 to the logical conclusion within a reasonable time. 8. Upon perusing the materials referred to above, and giving my consideration to the matter, I find force in the contention of the petition. 9. Accordingly, the case for regularization of petitioner No. 1, Shri. Katetsu in the concerned department shall also be considered in terms of the O.M. dated 17.03.2015 and the process completed within a period of 6(six) months. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant