There are altogether 34 petitioners in Civil Rule 40 (K) 93. Originally there were 36 of them, but during the pendency of this petition, petitioners 30 and 34 have withdrawn. Accordingly the names of petitioner No. 30 Shri Chubaonen and the name of petitioner No. 3 Sari Mon Bahadur shall stand struck oil. There are four petitioners in Civil Rule 33 (K) 93. By this judg­ment, I propose to dispose of these petitions as the question involved is same. 2. The petitioners in Civil Rule No. 40 (K) 93 were appointed as Work Charge Jugalis, Work Charge Helpers and Work Charge Khalisis during the period beginning from 1972 to 19o8. Ttie latest appointment in this regard was made in respect oi petitioner No. 35 in Civil Rule No. 40 (K) 93 Shri Imkongyabang by oruer dated 4.5.88. In Civil Rule No. 35 ^K) 93, petitioner No. 2 Sim Imtikumba was appointed as Work Charge time scale labour and the other petitioners were appointed as Woik Charge Khalasis. They were appointed during the period from 197? to 1986. In fact in respect of petitioner No. 4 Shri Lipokmar, one promotion was given to him as Work Caarge Kbalasi from tne post of time scale labour. 3. It is contended by Mr. Imti Longchar appearing on behalf of the petitioners that whereas in the initial appointments the petitioners were put in scales, however small the scales might have been that employment by giving them regular scales of pay was sought to be taken away by the impugned order dated 20th April, 1993 issued by SDO, PWD (Housing). By this impu­gned order, the petitioners were reverted to draw fixed pay of Rs. 450/-per month wet' 1st April, 1993. This order has been impugned firstly on the ground that SDO is not the competent authority to issue such order inasmuch as the petitioners had been appointed earlier by the Executive Engineer. Secondly this order is also i.upugned on the ground that once the petitioners were allowed to receive their pay and allowances according to the scales of pay prescribed for the various posts held by them, to revert them to work for a fixed pay of Rs. 450/- is not permissible. This order is also impugned on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before such order was issued. 450/- is not permissible. This order is also impugned on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before such order was issued. Another contention made on behalf of the petitioners is that since the petitioners have put in long periods of service, it is the duty of the Government to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners. As mentioned above, the latest appointment made in respect of petitioner No.35 was on 4.5.88. This means that petitioner No. 55 has also put in five years. Persons who were appointed in Iy72 have by now put in 22 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before me that in Civil Rule 1074 of 1990, 3 (JK) 92,114 of 1992 decided on 11.5.93 and also in Civil Rules 3 (K) 93. 117 (K) 92, 2 (K) 92, 116 (K) 92, 125 (K) 92 and i36 (K) 92 decided on 29.6.93, en the basis of statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General that Government has now formulated a policy to regularise the services of Government employees who have put in three years service, this Court had directed to take back the petitioners whose service had been terminated earlier. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case of the petitioners deserves such treatment by giving them regular employment inasmuch as they have put in several years of service. As stated above, the shortest length of service among the petitioners is about five years. 4. Mr. I. Jamir, learned Senior Govt. Advocate submits that despite his best efforts no instructions have been received from the Department. Notice of motion was issued in Civil Rule 40 (K) 93 on 21.5.93. Rule was issued in Civil Rule 35(K) 93 on7.5.93. It is unfortunate that the Department concerned has not been of any assistance to the Court in order to give clear directions in the matter. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case that I have narrated above, lam of the view that the impugned order dated 20th April, 1993 by which the petitioners were directed to receive fixed pay of Rs. 450/- does not appear to be reasonable. As such the said order is hereby set aside The petitioners shall continue to draw their pay and allowances which they were getting prior to the issuance of the impugned order. 450/- does not appear to be reasonable. As such the said order is hereby set aside The petitioners shall continue to draw their pay and allowances which they were getting prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Since tie petitioners have put in more than 3 years of service and indeed some of them having put in more than 20 years of service, the Department shall consider regularisation of the petitioners in the posts held by each of them by giving them regular scale of pay. 6. Petitioner No. 4 Shri Lepokmar is now said to be working as Bill Assistant in the office of the SDO (Housing) Mokokchung. It is contended that since Shri Lipokmar is a matriculate he deserves consideration for giving regular appointment as Bill Assistant in the said office. It is for the department concerned to examine this matter. 7. Since some of the petitioners will soon retire from service, the Gover­nment shall make every endeavour to process the case for regularisation within six (6) months from today. With the above direction these petitions are disposed of.