JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Srivastava, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. N. Z. Lotha, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Myingthunglo Lotha praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus/any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her service for thirty-five years with effect from 01.08.1984 till 2019 and thereafter to pay her salary due to her in the said rank and position with all other allowances as admissible to a permanent employee and also to grant all pension and retiral benefit as admissible in that position and rank and also to pay arrear of pay and allowances along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date arrears are paid to her. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was employed as a contingency basis sweeper in the Office of the District Sports Officer, Wokha, Nagaland by order No.DPE/EST-N/10/83- 84/961-4 dated 22 nd of July, 1984 at a fixed pay of Rs.300/- per month for a period of six months by the order of Director of the Directorate of School and Physical Education, Nagaland. 4. The petitioner was initially employed for a period of six months with effect from the date of her joining, i.e., from 01.08.1984 till 31.01.1985 and on conclusion of this said period, she was further employed for a period of one year, and thereafter, her services were extended by one year at a time till 2019, when she was released from service on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31 st July 2019. At the time of her superannuation, she was getting a salary of Rs.3000/- only per month. In the year 2013, she submitted a representation to the Director of Youth Resources and Sports, Kohima to consider the regularization of her service. The said representation was forwarded by the District Sports Officer, Wokha by forwarding letter No.BSO/WKA/ESTT-3/2011-12 dated 20.04.2013. However, the government, by its letter dated 12.11.2018, rejected the said proposal. 5. In the year 2013, she submitted a representation to the Director of Youth Resources and Sports, Kohima to consider the regularization of her service. The said representation was forwarded by the District Sports Officer, Wokha by forwarding letter No.BSO/WKA/ESTT-3/2011-12 dated 20.04.2013. However, the government, by its letter dated 12.11.2018, rejected the said proposal. 5. Thereafter, again, she submitted her last representation to the respondent authorities in the year 2019 for consideration of her prayer for regularization and release of consequential benefit. However, said representation was also not considered and on attaining the age of superannuation, she was allowed to retire on 31.07.2019 without any pensionary benefit, in spite of the fact that she rendered services for more than 34 years to the State. 6. Mr. S. K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after rendering services for more than 34 years to the state was denied the benefit of regularization, scale of pay and post-retirement benefit, which tantamount to abusing her as bonded labor by the state respondents. He submits that by doing so the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to her by the Constitution of India have also been infringed. 7. He submits that throughout her life the petitioner was even denied the statutory minimum wages which was due to her under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He submits that the state respondent by not acting as per law and by not complying with the requirements of the law has inflicted wrong on the petitioner which has given rise to continuous cause of action for invoking writ jurisdiction and as such this is a fit case where the writ jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to make the wrong right.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court of India in the case of “S. R. Bhanrale Vs. Union of India & Ors. ” reported in (1996) 10 SCC 172 8. He submits that the petitioner was having legitimate expectations that after rendering service for such a long period to the State, the State respondents would regularize her service and grant her all the benefits which were due to her, however, instead of doing so the petitioner was abused as a bonded labour. He submits that the State respondents have violated the provisions of Bonded Labour system (abolition) Act, 1976. 9. He submits that the State respondents have violated the provisions of Bonded Labour system (abolition) Act, 1976. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the state respondents were having duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure corresponding to fair play in action. He also submits that the state respondents were under an obligation to give due weightage to the legitimate expectations of the petitioner, which the State respondents have in utter disregards to the constitutional as well as statutory provisions, not complied with. 10. He submits that the petitioner was paid a meager monthly salary of Rs. 3000/-in violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to the Minimum Wages for the services rendered by her till the date of her superannuation. He also submits that the petitioner has to be dealt with in parity with a regular and permanent employee of the same rank who had performed identical duties like that of the petitioner in terms of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “ State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjeet Sing & Another” reported in 200610 SCJ 254. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to be dealt with on the basis of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” for grant of salary to her for performing identical duties like that of a regular employee. 11. He further submits that in the case of “Pihoto Sema & Anr. Vs. State of Nagaland &Ors. ” [W .P.(C) 112/2019] ,a co- ordinate bench of this Court had directed the State respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners of that case. He further submits that the facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the instant case, hence, the ratio of the aforesaid case is also applicable to the instant case. He submits that the learned government counsel for the state respondents had also made a submission before this Court on 25.07.2024 that the state has preferred an appeal against the decision of this Court in WP(C) 112/2019 and the said appeal was registered as WA No. 68/2021 and had prayed for deferring the matter till disposal of the aforesaid writ appeal which was allowed. He further submits that the State respondents had, later on, prayed for withdrawal of the aforesaid appeal and accordingly by the order dated 18.03.2025, the writ appeal No. 68/2021 was dismissed on withdrawal. He submits that in view of dismissal of the aforesaid writ appeal, the ratio of the judgment in the case of WP(C) No. 112/2019 is applicable to this case and the sate respondents are estopped from taking a contrary stand in this case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, MP, Gwalior & Anr. ” reported in 1987 1 SCR 200 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service with the respondent, she was eligible and entitled for regularization of her service in view of the provisions under Section 25B and 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ ONGC Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors. ” reported in (2015) II L J 2057 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even the exception carved out by the Apex Court in the case of “The Secretary, the State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi” reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , for those employees who have completed minimum 10 years of service on daily wage basis as on 10 th April, 2006, covers the case of the petitioner, as on the said date the petitioner had already completed 21 years 8 months and 10 days of continuous service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited following rulings in support of his submissions: a. State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mahanta reported in 2011 3 SCC 436 b. Nihal Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , reported in 2013 14 SCC 65 14. On the other hand, Ms. Inaholi, the learned Government Counsel has submitted that since the case of the petitioner does not conform to the regularization policy of the State Government,she is not entitled to the benefit of regularization of her service. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , reported in 2013 14 SCC 65 14. On the other hand, Ms. Inaholi, the learned Government Counsel has submitted that since the case of the petitioner does not conform to the regularization policy of the State Government,she is not entitled to the benefit of regularization of her service. She submits that the State Government had introduced the policy and scheme of regularization of work charge employees in the year 2004 by notifying the Office Memorandum bearing No. AR-3/Gen-67/2001(Pt) dated 22.09.2004. The State Government again updated its policy and scheme for regularization in the year 2015 by issuing Office Memorandum bearing No. AR-3/Gen-201/2009 dated 17.03.2015. She submits that the petitioner is not covered under any of the aforesaid Office Memorandum. She further submits that the petitioner was released from service on the basis of Office Memorandum bearing No. AR-3/Gen-174/2007(Pt) dated 26.03.2013. 15. The learned Government counsel submits that the petitioner was a contingent worker hired on fixed term basis to provide specific services for specific period and was not a full-time employee. She submits that the petitioner was a part-time employee, therefore, she cannot claim benefits as regular employee. She also submits that the petitioner was not occupying any sanctioned post, hence, she cannot claim the same entitlements like that of a permanent employee appointed against a sanctioned post. 16. The learned Government counsel also submits that the petitioner cannot be regarded as bonded labourer as she was never compelled to continue to work as a contingent employee and was free to get herself engaged elsewhere. She further submits that being the part-time employee, the petitioner was not subjected to the service rules and regulations which governed and regulate the services of a regularly appointed staff of the department. In support of her submission, she has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Union of India & Ors. Vs. A. S. Pillai & Ors.” reported in ( 2010) 13 SCC 448. 17. The learned Government Counsel submits that the petitioner has not established or proved the fact as to whether she was discharging duties and responsibilities like other regular Grade IV employees to claim parity in salary with such employees. Vs. A. S. Pillai & Ors.” reported in ( 2010) 13 SCC 448. 17. The learned Government Counsel submits that the petitioner has not established or proved the fact as to whether she was discharging duties and responsibilities like other regular Grade IV employees to claim parity in salary with such employees. She submits that right to claim a particular salary against a particular post must arise out of a contract or under a statute, which is not the case in the instant case. She submits that as the petitioner has failed to produce any material on record to show that she was discharging duties like that of a regular employee, the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of “ State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjeet Singh & Another” (supra) is not applicable to her case. In support of her submission, she has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ State of Rajasthan &Ors. Vs. Daya Lal &Ors.” reported in AIR 2011 SC 1193, as well as the case of “Union of India &Ors. Vs. Ilmo Devi &Ors.” reported in AIR 2021 SC 4855 . 18. The learned Government counsel has also submitted that the petitioner failed to prove and establish that she has been discriminated against in respect of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” vis-à-vis a regular employee, as she has failed to produce any material before the Court to justify her claim. She submits that it is the duty of the employee seeking parity of pay under the Constitutional provisions to prove and established that he or she has been discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be decided on consideration of various factors and statutory rules. She submits that the person claiming parity must sufficiently produce material before the Court to adjudicate upon such a complicated issue of factual determination. She submits that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrined in the Constitution of India cannot be applied in a vacuum. The Court has to consider various factors like source and mode of recruitment, the qualification, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, functional needs etc. She submits that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrined in the Constitution of India cannot be applied in a vacuum. The Court has to consider various factors like source and mode of recruitment, the qualification, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, functional needs etc. She submits that, the burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right, which, in the instant case the petitioner has failed to establish. In support of her submission learned Government counsel has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Steel Authority of India Ltd. &Ors. Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya” reported in ( 2011) 11 SCC 122 19. The learned Government counsel submits that the petitioner was fully aware of the nature and circumstances of her appointment, i.e., she was a part-time employee appointed on contingency basis and was not entitled to any retirement benefit. She submits that as a part-time employee on a fixed pay, the petitioner was not entitled to get scale of pay, hence the Finance Department of the government rightly rejected the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondenthas accordingly prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition. 20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 21. On perusal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner as well as the documents annexed therewith, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed, on 22 nd July, 1984, to act a sweeper on contingency basis at a fixed pay of Rs. 300/- per month, for a period of 6 months with effect from the date of her joining. Thereafter, her service was extended for another one year with effect from 01.02.1985. It also appears that her pay was enhanced to Rs. 750/- per month with effect from 01.04.2003 and her service was extended, for a period of another one year, to 31.03.2004. It also appears that by order dated 30.05.2025, the pay of contingency paid to staff (sweeper) was enhanced to Rs. 2100/- per month. 22. It also appears that her pay was enhanced to Rs. 750/- per month with effect from 01.04.2003 and her service was extended, for a period of another one year, to 31.03.2004. It also appears that by order dated 30.05.2025, the pay of contingency paid to staff (sweeper) was enhanced to Rs. 2100/- per month. 22. It also appears that the petitioner was released from service on 30.06.2019, on attaining the age of 60 years, and this writ petition has been filed on 11.09.2023, i.e., after a gap of more than 4 years from the date of her release. However, no cause has been shown in the writ petition for approaching this Court belatedly except by stating that it was because of her illiteracy, abject straitened and impoverished circumstances. 23. The petitioner, apart from her initial appointment order dated 22.07.1984, has annexed three other office orders by which her pay was enhanced. Apart from the aforementioned documents the only other document which the petitioner has annexed along with her writ petition is the forwarding letter dated 20.04.2013 of the District Sports Officers, Wokha whereby the application filed by the present petitioner, praying for regularization of her service, was forwarded to the Director, Youth Resources & Sports. 24. No other document has been produced by the petitioner before the Court to show that she was not working on part- time basis and that the nature of the duties performed by her and hours of work she used to render her service on day-to- day basis was equivalent to the service rendered by a regular employee. 25. The contention of the state respondents is that the petitioner was not a full-time employee and that she used to work on a part-time basis hence, she cannot claim parity with regular employee and claim “equal pay for equal work”. The petitioner has not produced any material before this Court to establish the fact that the nature of work and duty hours rendered by her were identical to that of a regular employee with whom she was seeking parity. 26. The Apex Court in the case of “Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya” (supra)while dealing with the obligation of an employee seeking parity of pay on the basis of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”, has observed as follows: “22. 26. The Apex Court in the case of “Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya” (supra)while dealing with the obligation of an employee seeking parity of pay on the basis of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”, has observed as follows: “22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against, as the question of parity has to be decided on consideration of various facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. The court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh [ (2006) 9 SCC 82 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1610 : AIR 2006 SC 2296 ] , Union of India v. Mahajabeen Akhtar [ (2008) 1 SCC 368 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 183 : AIR 2008 SC 435 ] , Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. [ (2008) 1 SCC 586 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 248 : AIR 2008 SC 1026 ] , Union of India v. Hiranmoy Sen [ (2008) 1 SCC 630 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 271] , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [ (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] , U.P. SEB v. Aziz Ahmad [ (2009) 2 SCC 606 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 418] and State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [ (2009) 13 SCC 635 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 287] .)” 27. In the instant case though the burden of establishing right and parity in employment was on the petitioner, she has failed to produce any material to show her duty hours as well as counter the contention of the state respondents that she was engaged on a part-time basis only. Even for claiming minimum wages, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1984, the petitioner has a burden to establish as to for how many hours she used to work in a day as a sweeper on contingency basis, more so, when the state respondents are claiming that she was not a full-time employee. 28. As regards the contention of the petitioner that she is entitled to get regularization of her services in view of the provisions under Section 25B and 25F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it appears that she had never raised such a claim before the respondent authorities when she was in service.As the said relief she is claiming is under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, she ought to have raised this claim before the appropriate authorities, so that, if required, the same could have been referred for adjudication before the competent adjudicatory forum, under the statute, at the appropriate time. Further, the facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely “ ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors. ” (supra), are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the said case, the aggrieved workmen had raised a dispute regarding their non- regularization, which was subsequently referred to the Industrial Tribunal. In the instant case, however, no such industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner prior to filing of this writ petition and raising the said issue for the first time in the instant writ petition.While deciding the aforesaid plea of the petitioner, questions of fact would also need to be ascertained. For the said purpose, appropriate forums such as the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, etc. have been provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It may not, therefore, be appropriate for this Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, to decide the said issue when such a plea was never raised before any forum by the petitioner prior to approaching this Court. 29. As regards the applicability of the ratio in the case of “ Pihoto Sema & Anr. Vs. State of Nagaland &Ors. It may not, therefore, be appropriate for this Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, to decide the said issue when such a plea was never raised before any forum by the petitioner prior to approaching this Court. 29. As regards the applicability of the ratio in the case of “ Pihoto Sema & Anr. Vs. State of Nagaland &Ors. ”, (supra) to the instant case.The facts in the case of “Pihoto Sema” (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the said case, the petitioner approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction while still in service, whereas, the present petitioner approached this Court after more than four years of her release upon attaining the age of superannuation. Moreover, Pihoto Sema was a contingent- based peon and chowkidar, whereas the present petitioner was a contingent-based sweeper. Accordingly, the nature of work and duty hours may not be the same, and the petitioner has produced no material to show that the work performed by her or her duty hours were similar to those of the petitioner in the case of “ Pihoto Sema & Anr. Vs. State of Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show Nagaland &Ors.”. that she was entitled for regularization of her service in terms of the prevailing Office Memorandum encompassing the regularization policy of the State Government. The Apex Court has in the case of “State of Nagaland &Ors. Vs. Nishevi Achumi” reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 818 has declined the relief of the regularization for the services of work charged employees who do not conform to the regularization policy of the state. 30. Similarly, in the case of “Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ilmo (supra), the Apex Court has held that the part- Devi &Ors.” time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post, neither they can claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.Since the petitioner failed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the Office Memorandum bearing No. AR-3/Gen-67/2001(Pt) dated 22.09.2004 and the Office Memorandum bearing No. AR-3/Gen-201/2009 dated 17.03.2015 envisaging the regularization policy of the State Government and since the said Office Memorandums are not put to challenge by the petitioner, she is not entitled to get regularization of her services. 31. 31. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the forgoing paragraphs, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 32. The Registry is directed to immediately send this case record to the Registry of the permanent bench of this High Court at Kohima.