Page No.# 1/11 GAHC020002102025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/68/2025 SMTI. KENLONG KONYAK WIFE OF SHRI NYAKCHING KONYAK, R/O TECHA WARD, MON TOWN, MON, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRERTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (H) EDUCATION DIVISION KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:THE ADDITIONAL SDO (EDUCATION) MON NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, KONLI BUCHEM,V ANNE THERIE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Page No.# 2/11 Date : 24-11-2025 Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Livika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 17-03-2015 to the extent that a Work Charged Employee serving in the department for 30 (thirty) years be made entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for retrospective regularization of her service for the purpose of grant to her pension and pensionary benefit. The petitioner, herein, was initially engaged as a Worked Charge Sweeper on a fixed pay of Rs. 450/- (Rupees Four Hundred Fifty) w.e.f. 21-12-1989. The wages of the petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 2000/- vide a notification dated 15-10-2005. The petitioner’s dedicated service in the establishment was recognized and recorded in a performance certificate issued to her by the Executive Engineer, PWD (H), Education Division, Kohima dated 10-05- 2023. The petitioner while continuing to discharge her duties, her services were not extended w.e.f. December, 2022 and accordingly, her salaries came to be withheld. The petitioner had taken up the issue with the respondent authorities and while the matter was being processed, the petitioner had retired from her services w.e.f. 31-12-2024 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner, herein, had served in the department for about 34 years. Page No.# 3/11 The petitioner not being authorized a scale of pay, the services of the petitioner under the provisions of the OM dated 17-03-2015, was not considered for regularization. The provisions of the OM dated 17-03-2015 mandates regularization of the services of worked charged/ casual employees of various departments enjoying a scale of pay and who have completed 30 years or more continuous service as on 01-01-2015, by conversion of their post into regular one as personal to them. The said scheme also provides that on regularization of their services, the pay of the incumbents shall be fixed at a minimum of the corresponding pay band and grade pay as admissible under Rule 10 of the Nagaland Services (RoP) Rules 2010 (in short the Rules of 2010). The petitioner, herein, although had rendered around 34 years of service, she not being authorized scale of pay, her case of regularization of her services was not taken up for consideration under the scheme as formulated vide OM dated 17-03-2015. Accordingly the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding praying for the reliefs as noticed hereinabove. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove submits that the petitioner having rendered 34 (thirty four) years of service, the respondent authorities have not highlighted as to why the petitioner was not extended with a scale of pay. He submits that the only on the ground that the petitioner was not extended with a scale of pay, regularization of her services was not considered and she was excluded from the scheme as formulated vide OM dated 17-03-2015. He further submits Page No.# 4/11 that the persons similarly situated like the petitioner and even junior to her were regularized in their services, however, the petitioner, herein, was not extended with similar benefits. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the cases of State of Nagaland Vs. Angphei Konyak reported in 2024 (1) NLJ 384 and Shri Paolam Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. (Judgment dated 02-09-2025 in W. A. No. 03/2025) 4. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing in the matter has submitted that the petitioner, herein, not having fulfilled the eligibility criteria as set out in the OM dated 17-03-2025 during her service tenure, was not entitled to have her service regularized. He submits that the services of the petitioner not having been regularized, she would not be entitled to be authorized her pension and pensionary benefits. The learned Govt. Advocate accordingly submits that the present writ petition would mandate dismissal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The facts noticed hereinabove are not in dispute. The petitioner, herein, although being in continuous engagement as a work charged sweeper, on fixed pay basis, w.e.f. 21-12-1989, she was not authorized a scale of pay during her tenure of service in the department, although the fixed pay of the petitioner was being enhanced from time to time. The petitioner having retired from her services on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31-12-2024, the petitioner was held to be not entitled Page No.# 5/11 to receive pension and pensionary benefits. The persons similarly situated like the petitioner had approached this Court by way of institution of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 21/2021. The said writ petition was allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11-04- 2022, granting to the petitioner, therein, the reliefs sought for including the payment of pension and pensionary benefits. The State being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 11-04-2022 had carried the same up on appeal by instituting W.A. No. 35/2022. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 06-02-2024 proceeded to dismiss the said writ appeal preferred by the State by upholding the judgment and order dated 11-04-2022, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21/2021. The said decision in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Angphei Konyak reported in 2024 (1) NLJ 384, being a decision of the Division Bench of this Court is binding on this Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Angphei Konyak (Supra) had drawn the following conclusions:- 16. It is the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had submitted representation on 07.09.2015, [which is being annexed with the Writ Appeal at Page No. 35] while he was in service, for up-gradation of his salary from fixed pay to scale pay, but, the same received no consideration from the appellant authorities. It also appears from the RTI reply dated Nil.-03- 2021, that 380 work charges employees were awarded the scale of pay, who were all junior to the respondent, and despite filing of representation, the case of the petitioner is not considered and that 195 work charge employees were regularised by the department who were all junior to the respondent and that out of 195 work charged employees 39 of them were regularised without completion of 30 years and 29 of them have not even completed 10 years and 8 employees were regularised on the very day of their joining. Thus, it Page No.# 6/11 becomes apparent that the appellant authorities have not followed the O.M. dated 22.09.2004 and O.M. dated 17.03.2015, and that adoption of different yardstick to similarly situated employees is writ large and as such the action of the appellants appears to be discriminatory, arbitrary and unlawful. And as such, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the finding so recorded by learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity requiring any interference of this court. …………. 21. That, in respect of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 2022, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of decision of two earlier Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 12(K) 2009, dated 22.02.2011, (State of Nagaland & Ors. vs. Ramaswami) and State of Manipur & Ors. vs. KSH Ibobal Singh reported in 1997 2 GLT 209, the decision in Writ Appeal No.27 of 2022 is per incurium in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors.(supra). The submissions, so advanced by Mr. Sentiyanger, received due consideration of this court and we find substance in the same. It appears that in the said two decisions, the Division Bench of this Court, having considered the length of service, so rendered by the petitioners of said two petitions, had upheld the impugned decisions of learned Single Judges, by which the respondent authorities were directed to extend pensionary and other retirement benefits. Though the decision in KSH Ibobal Singh (supra) was discussed and distinguished in W.A. No. 27/2022, the decisions in Writ Appeal No. 12(K)/2009, dated 22.02.2011, having not been taken into account in the decision in Writ Appeal No.27 of 2022, and having been later in point of time, the decision in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 2022 appears to be per incurium in view of decision of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that ratio laid down in the said two cases would not advance the case of the appellants. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Ilmo Devi and Anr., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899, to contend that the respondent has no legal right to be regularised in service and that sympathy and sentiment cannot be ground for order for regularisation. Whereas, Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the factual background of the referred case is quite different from the present case, as in the referred case, the petitioner was part time employee, but, in the case in hand the respondent is a work charged employee who had rendered 35 years continuous service in the department. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels of both side and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, we are in complete agreement Page No.# 7/11 to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. 23. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the letter No. PHE-1/ESTT/81/2018(Pt), dated 23rd July, 2020, to contend that in view of the of the said letter, the fixed pay employees, who have retired on or before 1st January, 2020 shall not have the right to claim scale of pay and that the said letter did not cover the case of the petitioner as because he had retired on 30.09.2019, and that the respondent had not challenged the said letter, he cannot claim for regularisation, yet Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent was not privy to the said communication and that the said letter cannot stand in the way of granting relief to the respondent/petitioner. Mr. Sentiyanger vehemently submits that even the two O.M. dated 22.04.2004 and 17.03.2015, also cannot be impediment as the same, being executive instructions, the same can only supplement the statute i.e. The Nagaland Work-Charge and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001, but cannot supplant the same and that harmonious reading of section 2(d) and 12 of the said Act which envisions regularisation of workcharge employees without sanction post. Mr. Sentiyanger, further submits that section 12 of the said Act provides that –„The State Government may draw up a scheme for absorption of service of work charged employees into regular Government service.‟ And accordingly, the Government of Nagaland Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch) had issued O.M. dated 10.07.2001 and O.M. dated 22.09.2004 and thereafter, O.M. dated 17.03.2015, for regularisation of work charge employees and the latest O.M. dated 17.03.2015 is silent as to whether the same supersedes the former and as such all the O.Ms. have to be read harmoniously and the same have to be read up and interpreted liberally so as to extend its benefit to the employees. 24. Having considered the submissions of Mr. Sentiyanger, in the light of given facts and circumstances on the record we find sufficient force in the same. It is settled principles of interpretation that beneficial piece of legislation must be construed liberally so as to achieve the object sought to be fulfilled by the legislature. And if two interpretations are possible in a particular provision, the one, which advance the object sought to be achieved by such legislation has to be adopted and benefit has to be extended to the workmen. In this regard we may gainfully refer to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen reported in AIR 1961 SC 647. Same principle was echoed in the case of Lalappa Lingappa and Ors. vs. L.V. Textile Mills Ltd. reported in AIR 1981 SC 852. It is also well settled in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 11 SCC 392, that executive instructions can only supplement statutory provision, but, it Page No.# 8/11 cannot supplant the same. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the O.M. dated 22.09.2004 and O.M. dated 17.03.2015, cannot be interpreted to defeat the legislative intent, which is being sought to be achieved by enacting the Nagaland Work-Charge and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001. 25. Similarly, the letter dated 23rd July, 2020, No. PHE1/ESTT/81/2018(Pt), also, to the considered opinion of this court cannot stand in the way of granting scale of pay to the respondent as the state appellant had granted scale of pay to 380 work charged employees, majority of whom were junior to the respondent leaving aside his case, in spite of the application submitted to respondent No.3, and that the petitioner has been discriminated thereby, which is not at all permissible. It is to be noted here that the letter dated 23rd July, 2020, No. PHE-1/ESTT/81/2018(Pt), is neither a Notification nor Office Memorandum, but a communication between two officers with regard to some petitioners in Writ Petition No. 228/2018 (Shri Phuhton K. & 46 Others vs. State of Nagaland & 5 Others). Moreover, the respondent was not a party to the same. Therefore, the action of the department, limiting upgradation from fixed pay to scale of pay to only work charge employees, who retired on or before 01.01.2020, is arbitrary and unreasonable classification. …………………………. 32. Thus, having considered the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties in the light of the given facts and circumstances on the record and in the conspectus of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also of this court, we find the submission of Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel for the respondent well merited and accordingly, we are inclined to accepts the same. And for reason discussed herein above, we are in respectful disagreement with the submission of Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland and accordingly the same stands repudiated. We find and hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity requiring any interference of this court. 7. A similar issue had arisen before this Court in the case of Paolam (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court on consideration of the issue involved had drawn the following conclusions:- “28. In the present case, we find that the respondents have admitted that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular and also that other similarly circumstances were given the benefits of not only Page No.# 9/11 scale of pay but have also been regularized on the basis that they had enjoyed the scale of pay and had completed 30 years of service. We have noticed that the respondents could not point out any reason as to why the petitioner had not been paid in the scale of pay. Further to that, he completed 35 years of service when he was superannuated on 30/06/2019. We have also seen that the State while regularizing or absorbing person who were juniors to the petitioner and were similar work-charged employees were adjusted or absorbed or regularized in the same post by converting into sanctioned post only for the purpose of regularizing or absorbing the concerned work-charged employees. In the absence of any explanation by the respondent authorities to lawfully deny the petitioner an equal treatment with the other work- charged employees and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been able to establish that he has faced discrimination, we deem fit it and appropriate to direct the State respondents to cause an enquiry into the service particulars of the petitioner and in the event it is found that persons similarly situated, whether contemporaries or juniors to the petitioner, have been afforded the scale of pay and subsequently regularization in service, the case of the petitioner be also considered for regularization of his service only for the purpose of making him eligible to the benefits of pension and other pensionary benefits at the applicable norms. We make it clear that in the event of such regularization, the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages on the basis of retrospective regularization granted to him. Since it is a matter of record that the other work-charged employees had been regularized in the same post which they were holding, the respondents may resort to the same procedure while considering the case of the petitioner. 29. The writ appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents shall carry out an enquiry and pass necessary order regarding the regularization or absorption in service of the petitioner to entitle him to the benefits of pension and other pensionary benefits within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 8. In view of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Angphei Konyak (Supra) and Paolam (Supra), noticed, hereinabove, which squarely applies to the facts involved in the present case, this Court by applying the said decisions holds that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to have her services to be deemed to be regularized and accordingly, she would be eligible for being authorized pension and other Page No.# 10/11 pensionary benefits in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the State respondent would now cause an enquiry into the service particulars of the petitioner noticed, hereinabove, and also examine the contentions of the petitioner that persons similarly situated like her, whether contemporary or junior, have been afforded the scale of pay, followed by regularization of their services. In the event on such examination the contentions of the petitioner is found to be correct, the case of the petitioner be also considered for regularization of her services, only for the purpose of making her eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits, in accordance with law. It is further provided that in the event of regularization of service of the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages on the ground of such retrospective regularization granted to her. However, basing on such regularization, the pension and pensionary benefits be authorized to the petitioner w.e.f. the date she had retired from her services on reaching the age of superannuation. 10. The respondent authorities to complete the exercise now required to be undertaken in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, and thereafter arrive at a decision in the matter pertaining to the entitlement of the petitioner, herein, to pension and pensionary benefits, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 11/11 Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant