JUDGEMENT & ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for regularizing her service from her initial date of appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kekhriesenuo. Also heard Mr. Ajungli Sangtam, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 3. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner states that her husband died-in-harness on 12.05.1994 while working as Sub-Divisional Head Assistant (S.D.H.A.) under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Housing), Kohima, Nagaland. 4. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner submitted an application for an appointment on humanitarian ground. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application was processed and she was appointed as Sweeper on contingency basis by order NO.E/66-ESTATE/94-95/1269-73 dated 31.08.1994 on a fixed pay of Rs. 750/- per month. 5. Thereafter, by office order NO.E/66-ESTATE/94-95/190-95 dated 13.11.1997 the petitioner was promoted and appointed as worked- charged Sweeper on scale pay w.e.f. 18.03.1997 and accordingly the service book of the petitioner was opened and maintained. 6. However, by another office order dated 09.08.2001 the petitioner’s service was again reverted from worked-charged Sweeper to the post of Contingency Sweeper w.e.f. 01.08.2001. The petitioner submitted representation dated NIL to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Housing), Nagaland praying for regularization of her service. 7. By an office letter dated 11.07.2001, the Executive Engineer PWD (Housing) had written to the Chief Engineer, PWD, Nagaland forwarding the application of the petitioner for regularization of her service. The Executive Engineer in his letter dated 11.07.2001 also stated that the petitioner was appointed as Contingency Sweeper as her husband had expired while on duty. 8. Another application dated 20.03.2006 was submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Housing), Nagaland praying for regularization of her service. The petitioner again submitted another application in the year 2022, which was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Housing), Estate Division, Kohima to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Housing), Nagaland vide letter dated 16.06.2022 stating that the petitioner was at Sl. No.3 in the seniority list of the Division and that she is very sincere and diligent in her duties. Similar applications and representations were also submitted by the petitioner in the year 2024. The last application was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Housing), Estate Division, Kohima to the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, vide letter dated 02.04.2024 stating that the petitioner will retire on attaining superannuation age on 31.01.2025. Similar applications and representations were also submitted by the petitioner in the year 2024. The last application was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Housing), Estate Division, Kohima to the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, vide letter dated 02.04.2024 stating that the petitioner will retire on attaining superannuation age on 31.01.2025. However, there has been no positive outcome. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 9. It is further stated that the petitioner has now retired from service on 31.01.2025 after serving the department for 30 (Thirty) years without any break in service. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kekhriesenuo has placed reliance on a similar case decided by a coordinate bench of this Court in order dated 27.03.2003 passed in WP(C)/16(K)/2002, wherein the Court had allowed the writ petition with a direction to regularize the service of the writ petitioner on regular scale of pay. In WP(C)/16(K)/2002, the petitioner’s husband had also died-in-harness. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was appointed as typist on contract basis. After the initial appointment, she was again appointed as LDA for a period of 6 (Six) months. The petitioner was continuously serving by virtue of various orders of appointment limiting the durations for temporary spells. By the last order she was appointed as typist on fixed pay of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat for a specific period. 11. In WP(C)/16(K)/2002 also the State respondents had filed their counter-affidavit raising the ground that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and she had no right to get regularization of her service. 12. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was of the opinion that the petitioner with the burden of 3 (three) minor children could not be rendered jobless and accordingly direction was issued for regularization of her service. 13. Against the judgment dated 27.03.2003 passed in WP(C)/16(K)/2002, the State respondents filed an appeal registered as Writ Appeal No. 2(K)/2005 which was decided on 16.09.2005 and the said judgment is reported in 2005 (4) GLT 523, State of Nagaland and Anr Vs. Asieno Sakhrie . 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Asieno Sakhire (Supra) the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the State of Nagaland had adopted the scheme of the Central Government formulated in 1979 and formulated its own scheme in 2002. Asieno Sakhrie . 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Asieno Sakhire (Supra) the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the State of Nagaland had adopted the scheme of the Central Government formulated in 1979 and formulated its own scheme in 2002. The Division Bench held that the 1st appointment in 1994 was on contractual basis followed by temporary appointments in different spells. It was held that the petitioner’s case was required to be considered under the 1978 scheme. It was also held that the State respondents had ignored the recommendations for considering her case for compassionate appointment and she was treated at par with other casual employees. Therefore, the direction of the Single Judge for regularization of service was upheld by the Division Bench. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the case of Asieno Sakhrie (Supra) submits that the instant case is squarely covered by the case of Asieno Sakhrie . She submits that at the time of death of the petitioner’s husband there was an office memorandum dated 01.08.1978 on the subject of compassionate appointment. She submits that even though a particular scheme for compassionate appointment was adopted and laid down only in the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2002, it is also a fact that cases for compassionate appointments were being considered by the State government even before 13.02.2002. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment on the death of her husband. She submits that at the relevant time in 1994 when her husband died in harness, she was in need of assistance with her children. Therefore, petitioner was appointed in the same year in 1994 after a few months of her husband’s death. Thus, her case was required to be considered on the basis of the memorandum of 1978 and the Office Memorandum No. AR-8/8/78 dated 13.06.1979. 16. Therefore, petitioner was appointed in the same year in 1994 after a few months of her husband’s death. Thus, her case was required to be considered on the basis of the memorandum of 1978 and the Office Memorandum No. AR-8/8/78 dated 13.06.1979. 16. In view of the above submissions, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Asieno Sakhrie (Supra) , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case is a covered case and therefore, prays that this Court may issue a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner from her initial date of appointment on compassionate ground, and thereafter, to allow her all the pension benefits as a regular government employee. 17. The learned Government Advocate, Mr. Ajungli Sangtam relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents submits that the petitioner was not appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Contingency Sweeper on fixed pay of Rs. 750/- p.m. It is also stated that there is no government policy for regularization of Contingency employees and in absence of any government decision for regularization of contingency employees, the service of the petitioner cannot be regularized. 18. Learned Government Advocate also states that there was no scheme for compassionate appointment in 1994 at the time of the death of petitioner’s husband and the 3 (three) Office Memoranda for compassionate appointment dated 13.02.2002, 16.01.2012 and 17.09.2015 were adopted and notified only after the appointment of the petitioner and therefore, submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and needs to be dismissed. 19. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. This Court has also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Asieno Sakhrie (Supra) and finds that the facts and circumstances are similar to the facts in the instant case. 20. The only objection raised by the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition is that when the petitioner was appointed there was no scheme of compassionate appointment in the State of Nagaland. 20. The only objection raised by the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition is that when the petitioner was appointed there was no scheme of compassionate appointment in the State of Nagaland. However, the learned Government Advocate has not denied the existence of the th office memorandum No. AR-8/8/78 dated 13 June,1979 wherein it is indicated that there was another office memorandum dated 01.08.1978 on the subject of compassionate appointment. The Office Memorandum dated 13.06.1979 clearly indicates that the government was giving due consideration for compassionate appointments of Son/Daughter and near relatives of deceased government servants who died in harness, leaving the family in immediate need of assistance. It is an admitted fact that a specific scheme for compassionate appointment in the State of Nagaland was first notified on 13.02.2002. However, as gathered from the Office Memorandum dated 13.06.1979 the State respondents did consider cases for compassionate appointment in the past. And this issue has been laid to rest by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Asieno Sakhrie (Supra) 21. In the present case also the husband of the petitioner died in 1994, and the petitioner was appointed after a few months in the same year. Therefore, her case should have been considered based on the Office Memoranda of 1978 and 1979. Compassionate appointment has to be against a sanctioned post and is meant to give immediate and sustained relief not stop gap charity. Once the authority decides to grant compassionate appointment the employment cannot be casual or contingent. 22. The various communications made by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Housing), Estate Division, Kohima also indicate that the petitioner was appointed due to the fact that her husband expired while on duty. It is also an admitted fact that the service book of the petitioner was opened and was been maintained like any other regular government employee. It is clear from the discussion hereinabove that the contentions made by the State respondents that there was no scheme for compassionate appointment when the petitioner was appointed is contrary to the actual position. The State respondents have therefore, denied the writ petitioner of her right for compassionate appointment for several years and she was forced to accept the contingency appointment which she was bound to accept. The State respondents have therefore, denied the writ petitioner of her right for compassionate appointment for several years and she was forced to accept the contingency appointment which she was bound to accept. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner as a case for compassionate appointment and ought to have appointed her on regular basis. 23. This Court is aware of the fact that the petitioner after serving for 30 (Thirty) years has retired from service on attaining superannuation age on 31.01.2025. Under normal circumstances no writ of mandamus can be issued for regularization of service in a case of compassionate appointment. However, in the instant case, the Court has to also consider the background of the case and the situation in which the petitioner was forced to accept the contingency appointment in view of the hardship caused due to the demise of her husband. The respondents have extracted full service from the petitioner till superannuation. The action of the respondents in appointing the petitioner on contingency basis and continuing such appointment for the entire length of service till superannuation without regularization is arbitrary, and unreasonable. It is the view of this Court that the case of the petitioner deserves special consideration. 24. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The State respondents are directed to grant notional regularization of the service of the petitioner solely for the purpose of extending pensionary and retiral benefits as she has already retired from service on 31.01.2025. It is made clear that the directions contained herein is only confined to the case of the petitioner. 25. The entire exercise as directed above shall be carried out by the respondents specifically, the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 within a period of 3 (Three) months from the date of this order. Petition is disposed of.