Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020004712024 2025:GAU-NL:192 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/175/2024 SMTI. K. ARENLA YIMCHUNGER AND 10 ORS WORK-CHARGED JUGALI O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (HOUSING) TUENSANG, NAGALAND 2: SHRI KEDUOLHOUTUO SEYIE WORK-CHARGED JUGALI OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) CONSTRUCTION DIVISION CHIEPHOBOZUO NAGALAND 3: SHRI H. KIYEKHE SEMA WORK-CHARGED JUGALI OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) AGHUNATO NAGALAND 4: SHRI LEAPA KONYAK WORK-CHARGED SA OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) ABOI DIVISION Page No.# 2/7 MON NAGALAND 5: SHRI MEHAIKHA WORK-CHARGED PAINTER HELPER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) TSEMINYU NAGALAND 6: SHRI AKUO WORK-CHARGED SA OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) DIMAPUR NAGALAND 7: SHRI VISHIHO SEMA WORK-CHARGED KHALASI OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 8: SHRI HEWOTO SEMA WORK-CHARGED JUGALI OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 9: SMTI. CHUKUMA WORK-CHARGED JUGALI OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) PHEK NAGALAND Page No.# 3/7 10: SHRI IMTIANEN PHOM WORK-CHARGED SA OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (HOUSING) LONGLENG NAGALAND 11: SMTI. CHIMKILA CHANG WORK-CHARGED TRACER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) TUENSANG NAGALAN VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND WORKS AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HOUSING) Page No.# 4/7 NPWD NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (R AND B) NPWD KOHIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : SUPONGWATI WALLING, R ATSULA KIPS Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA ORDER Date : 13-05-2025 Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner nos. 1 to 11 are all Work Charged (Scale) employees who were appointed in the Department of NPWD, Kohima, Nagaland in between the year 1985-1997. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners are seeking for a direction to the State respondents to regularize their service under the Department of NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 issued by the Government of Nagaland, P&AR Department (Administrative Reforms Branch). It is the case of the petitioners that all of them fulfill the criteria for regularization of their services under the OM dated 17.03.2015. The Page No.# 5/7 petitioners have all submitted their respective representations to the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima, for regularization of their services, however, the same has not evoked any response. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The State respondents have submitted their affidavit-in-opposition in which at Para 5 it has been stated as follows: ‘5. That in regard to the statements made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition, the answering deponent respectfully begs to state that in order to regularize the service of the work charge employee the respondent authorities has to follow the Notifications or the Office Memorandum issued by the State Government. As stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that the State Government has brought out the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 which provides the Scheme for regularization and absorption of the Work charged and casual employees and revision of their pay and wages subject to conditions indicated here under: As per the Clause 1 (ii) and Clause 3 (i), (ii) and (ii) of the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-201/2009 dated 17.03.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Nagaland, the process for regularization of Work Charged Employees is very lengthy. The said Clause of the Office Memorandum are as follows:- Clause 1 (ii) "In respect of those work charged and casual employees in scale pay and who have completed or will complete 30(thirty) years of continuous service after 01.01.2015, their cases for regularization will be taken up subsequently in two batches as on 1st July and 1st January every year. The procedure and terms and conditions will be the same as laid down in this OM." Clause 3 (i) "Each Department shall prepare detailed list of all such work charged and casual employees enjoying scale pay who have completed 30 (thirty) years or more service as on 01.01.2015 and whose cases are proposed for regularization indicating name, designation, date of birth, date of entry into service, date of retirements, pay scale and existing total Page No.# 6/7 emoluments after regularization and additional financial implication." Clause (ii) "The list shall be certified by the District Level Verification Committee to the effect that the incumbents included in the list are verified and found genuine." Clause 3(ii) "Formal proposal for conversion of posts into regular ones to accommodate the employees proposed for regularization shall be submitted by the concerned Department first to P & AR and then to Finance for clearance and concurrence. After obtaining P & AR and Finance clearance the Departments concerned shall take up the proposal with the Cabinet for approval. Only after obtaining Cabinet approval, necessary Notifications for regularization in service shall be issued." The respondent department is actively considering the regularization of service of the petitioners as per the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. In order to regularize the petitioners Work charged service under the stated Office Memorandum it has to undergo a lengthy process and therefore the prayer of the petitioners for regularization of their service is taking some considerable amount of time. As stated in the above stated office memorandum after observing all the formalities and if the petitioner is found eligible for regularization with all documents proof, after approval by the Cabinet their case will be considered.’ 4. Mr. Supongwati Walling, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents more particularly in paragraph 5, the writ petition may be disposed with a direction to the State respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners within a reasonable period of time. Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate has no objection to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Page No.# 7/7 parties and on perusal of the paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, this Court directs the State respondents to consider the regularization of the services of the petitioners within a reasonable period of time, but not exceeding 6 (six) months from the date of passing of this order. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant