Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 334 (GAU)

Laiwang Konyak v. State of Nagaland

2004-05-13

B.LAMARE

body2004
JUDGMENT B. Lamare, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 79(K) 98 and Civil Rule No. 98(K) 98, Mr. Taka Masa, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 122(K)/97, Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 184(K)/2000 and W.P.(C) No. 182(K)/2000, Mr. G.A. Shimray, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 70(K) 1998, Mr. P.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 187(K) 2000 and W.P.(C) No. 2(K)/2001 and Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 144(K)/1997. Heard also Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Sr. Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents. 2. These 9 (nine) writ petitions are taken up together as they relate to the same questions of facts and law for regularisation of work charge/casual employees in the P.H.E. Department. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these series of writ petitions are narrated as hereunder. 4. The 10(ten) writ Petitioners in Civil Rules No. 98(K)/1998 were appointed as work charge employees under the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Mon. 5. The 149 Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 79(K)/1998 were appointed as work charge employees in the department of Public Health Engineering (PHED). Out of the 149 employees 57 were engaged under the Executive Engineer, Dimapur Division, 42 were engaged under the Executive Engineer, Zunheboto Division, 28 were engaged under the Executive Engineer, Wokha Division, 4 were engaged under the Executive Engineer, Tuensang Division and 18 were engaged under the Executive Engineer, PHED, Kohima Division. 6. The Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 122(K) 1997 is a registered Society under the name and style of Field Staff Association, Public Health Engineering Department, Tuensang Branch. This Association represented 51 members of the work charge employees under the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Tuensang Division. 7. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 184(K)/2000 was appointed as work charge Fitter Gr-II in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED-I. Kohima. 8. The 2 Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 182(K)/2000 were appointed as Fitter Gr-II and Mason under the Executive Engineer, PHED, Tuensang. 9. The Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 144(K) is the Unit of the All Nagaland Field Staff Association Public Health Engineering Department, Zunheboto. This Association represents 95 members of work charge employees under the Executive Engineer, PHED, Zunheboto. 10. 8. The 2 Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 182(K)/2000 were appointed as Fitter Gr-II and Mason under the Executive Engineer, PHED, Tuensang. 9. The Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 144(K) is the Unit of the All Nagaland Field Staff Association Public Health Engineering Department, Zunheboto. This Association represents 95 members of work charge employees under the Executive Engineer, PHED, Zunheboto. 10. The Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 70(K) 1998 was appointed as work charge Khalasi under the Executive Engineer, PHED, M.C. Division No. I, Kohima. 11. The 66 Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2(K) 2001 were appointed under the Executive Engineer, PHED, Dimapur, the Executive Engineer, PHED Working Division, Dimapur Executive Engineer, PHED, Store Division, Dimapur, Executive Engineer, PHED, Zunheboto, Executive Engineer, PHED, Kohima, Executive Engineer, PHED, M.C. Division, Kohima, Executive Engineer, PHED, Mokokchung and Executive Engineer, PHED, Mon. 12. The 55 Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 187(K)/2000 were appointed as work charge employees under the Executive Engineer, PHED Working Division, Dimapur, Executive Engineer, PHED, Mokokchung, Executive Engineer, PHED, Tuensang, Executive Engineer, PHED Maintenance Division, Dimapur, Executive Engineer, PHED, M.C. Division, Kohima and the Executive Engineer, PHED, Zunheboto. 13. All the Petitioners in the writ petitions were engaged in different capacities as work charge Khalasi, work charge skilled employees, work charge Controlman, work charge Fitters, work charge Pump Drivers, work charge Jugalis, work charge Painters etc. They were appointed on a regular scale of pay. The Petitioners have rendered service for the period ranging from 10 to 25 years in the PHED. However, inspite of their long service, the service of the Petitioners have not been regularised by the Respondents till date. While these writ petitions are pending before this Court some of the Petitioners have expired and some of them have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. During the pendency of these writ petition the State Government has also introduced a scheme blown as voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for the PHED in the year 2001. Many of the Petitioners have also availed these VRS scheme and had retired under the scheme. 14. During the pendency of these writ petition the State Government has also introduced a scheme blown as voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for the PHED in the year 2001. Many of the Petitioners have also availed these VRS scheme and had retired under the scheme. 14. The case of the Petitioners is that although they were appointed as Work charge employees in the Department but they performed the regular and essential works of the department and without the service of the Petitioner, it would not be possible for the department in making supply of water to the public in every nook and corner of the State. Therefore the nature of the service of the Petitioners are almost like the regular employees in the department. The Petitioners also stated that as they had little education they were appointed at the lowest rank of the employment and there is no scope for them for self employment or private employment in the State. After the Petitioners were appointed on casual basis, the Respondents taking advantage of their poor condition tried to exploit their service in keeping the regular supply of water in the State without regularisation of the service of the Petitioners. The Petitioners contended that they have discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. Since the Petitioners were appointed on regular scale of pay and they were granted annual increments from time to time there would be no financial implication even if their services were regularised. By regularisation of their services, the State will have only to bear their pensionary benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. Otherwise the Petitioners are more or less performing the same duties and functions as of regular employees of the State. The Petitioners have contended that some of them were promoted to the higher posts with the higher scale of pay and they also perform the same duties and functions as those of the regular employees. The Petitioners also contended that some of the casual employees have approached this Court earlier and their cases were considered and they were regularised by the department. 15. This phenomenon of appointment of casual/work charge employees is rampant in the State in almost all the Departments. Some of the writ Petitioners who faced the same situation as the present Petitioners have approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 97(K) of 97 and 3 other connected Civil Rules. 15. This phenomenon of appointment of casual/work charge employees is rampant in the State in almost all the Departments. Some of the writ Petitioners who faced the same situation as the present Petitioners have approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 97(K) of 97 and 3 other connected Civil Rules. Those Petitioners were appointed as Malis and Sweepers under the Estate Officer, Nagaland, Kohima and they have rendered service for the period ranging from 9 to 28 years. This Court disposed of the said Civil Rules by judgment and order dated 01.04.1997 with the following directions: (a) Respondents shall prepare a scheme to absorb the services of the work charged employees who have completed 10 years of service as a work charged employees as on today. Such scheme shall be prepared within 6 (six) months and the work charged employees shall be regularised in a phase manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability with effect from 1st January, 1998. (b) The Work charged employees who have completed 5 (five) years of service as work-charged employee as on today shall be allowed to continue in the establishment till their services are regularised as in "a". (c) The entire exercise shall be completed by May, 2001. (d) The authority is at liberty to deal with the work charged employees who have rendered less than 5 (five) years of service as on today, as maybe considered appropriate. (e) The authority shall not appoint any new work charged employee till the entire exercise as in "a" "b" are completed. (f) This order will regulate the services not only of the parties to the present petitions, but also in all other departments similarly situated including any case pending before this Court. 16. Against the judgment and order dated 1/4/97 passed by this Court, the State preferred an appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 302/1997. In terms of the direction at "a" of the said judgment and order, during the pendency of the writ appeal the State Government introduced an Act which is known as The Nagaland Work Charge and Casual Employees Act, 2001 which came into force with effect from 1st April, 2001. Under the Act a scheme is also made for regularisation/absorption of work charge employees. Under the Act a scheme is also made for regularisation/absorption of work charge employees. After the said Act was passed the writ appeal was disposed of by order dated 18/7/2001 by which the learned Division Bench of this Court has held that since an Act was passed and the scheme was made under the Act for regularisation and absorption of work charge employees, the case of the work employees may be considered under the scheme. 17. However, inspite of the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the case of the Petitioners have not been considered till date for regularisation of their services. 18. The contention of the Respondents for non-regularisation of the case of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners were not appointed against permanent vacancies. The appointment orders clearly indicates that the Petitioners were appointed on work charge basis and also promoted on temporary basis. Their services are liable to be terminated at any time without notice. Respondents also stated that regularisation can be made only when there are regular posts and since there are no regular posts existing in the Department, the services of the Petitioners could not be regularised. The Respondents also stated that whenever there is a regular vacancy in any Division in the Department, the work charge employees were regularised against the vacancy. The regularisation also has to be made on the basis of the seniority whenever vacancy arises in the Division. 19. The state Respondents have also filed an additional affidavit to clarify the position with regard to the appointment of the work charge employees in the Public Health Engineering Department. In the affidavit it is stated that the PHED has a force of 6795 work charge employees. This number is far more than what is required by the department and therefore an exercise was made to find out how many are required by the department to operate and maintain the entire system in the department. In order to solve this problem the department has introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for giving a financial package to the work charge employees who desire to go on voluntary retirement. The VRS was duly approved by the Cabinet and as many as 3130 work charge employees opted for voluntary retirement. In order to solve this problem the department has introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for giving a financial package to the work charge employees who desire to go on voluntary retirement. The VRS was duly approved by the Cabinet and as many as 3130 work charge employees opted for voluntary retirement. The Respondents, however, stated that since the work charge employees were appointed in excess of the sanctioned posts and at present there are no existing vacancies with any backing of budgetary provisions, the Petitioners could not be regularised in their services. It is, however, stated in the affidavit that during he pendency of these writ petitions some of the writ Petitioners were regularised. 20. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 98(K) 98 and Civil Rule No. 79(K) 98 submitted that the Petitioners have rendered long service ranging from 10 to 25 years in the department. They were appointed on regular scale of pay and they were given their due annual increments. The Petitioners were also provided with the facilities of GPF and other facilities. They are performing the same duties as regular staff of the Department. The Petitioners have been in regular and continuous service. But inspite of the fact that the Petitioners were in continuous service for along time the Respondents have failed to regularise their services. The learned Counsel also contended that the Petitioners have rendered the prime of their life in the service of the department and their families are also settled on the basis of the income of the Petitioners. Therefore, if the Petitioners services were not regularised the Petitioners will have to retire empty handed without any pensionary and other benefits. Learned Counsel also contended that although the Nagaland Work Charge and Casual Employees Act, 2001 has been enacted and has come into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2001, no scheme has been framed by the State Government under the Act for regularisation of the work charge employees. Learned Counsel further submitted that the plea taken by the Respondents that there were no vacancies is not correct. In support of this contention the learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the 4 office orders dated 11.10.2001 whereby 4 (four) appointments were made on work charge basis in the Department. Learned Counsel further submitted that the plea taken by the Respondents that there were no vacancies is not correct. In support of this contention the learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the 4 office orders dated 11.10.2001 whereby 4 (four) appointments were made on work charge basis in the Department. Learned Counsel also draws the attention to other appointment orders dated 11.8.2000 where one Khalasi was appointed, office order dated 30.9.2000 where one Peon was appointed and order dated 29.4.2000 where one Fitter Gr-II was appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, these appointments shows that the contention of the Respondents that there was no vacancy to accommodate the Petitioners is not correct. The learned Counsel also contended that instead of regularising the Petitioners who have rendered long service, the Respondents have resorted to fresh appointments even during the pendency of these writ petitions. The learned Counsel further contended that since the Petitioners are treated as regular employees in respect of their pay scale, increments, GPF contribution etc., they are entitled to be regularised. Moreover, the Petitioners have no other way to seek alternative appointment at this stage when they were already age barred and their services not regularised they shall be put into starvation after retirement. 21. Mr. Taka Masa, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 122(K)/1997 supported the contention of Mr. B.N. Sarma and stated that the Petitioners in this petition have rendered services for the period ranging from 10 to 15 years. Although the Petitioners were appointed on fixed pay initially but they were granted regular scale of pay. The Petitioners were also age barred by this time and would have no alternative employment if their services are not regularised. The learned Counsel also contended that the entire department is managed by all the petitioners in these writ petitions in making it possible for the Respondents to supply water to the public in the State. Without the services of the Petitioners it would not be possible for the Respondents to fulfill the duties of making regular supply of water in the State. The learned Counsel also contended that even in the matter of appointments of regular staff there is an excess appointment over the sanctioned posts. Without the services of the Petitioners it would not be possible for the Respondents to fulfill the duties of making regular supply of water in the State. The learned Counsel also contended that even in the matter of appointments of regular staff there is an excess appointment over the sanctioned posts. Citing an example, the learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the staff position under the Chief Engineer, PHED whereby against the sanctioned posts of 1081 of all categories of staff under this establishment, the present strength of the establishment is 1510. Therefore the appointments were made much more than the sanctioned posts. There is no question therefore that the services of the Petitioners should not be regularised. 22. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 182(K) 2000 and W.P.(C) No. 184(K) 2000 while supporting the contention of Mr. B.N. sharma submitted that the writ Petitioners have rendered services ranging from 17 to 20 years and that they were appointed on regular scale of pay and there is a need for the services of the Petitioners for running the water supply in the department. The learned Counsel also contended that by virtue of their long services, the Petitioners deserves to be regularised in their services. 23. Mr A. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Association in Civil Rule No. 144(K) 1997 contended that the 95 member of the Association have rendered long service in the department and that their services were utilized as it was needed by the department for running the water supply in the Division. Mr. G.A. Shimray, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 70(K) 1998 submitted that the Petitioner was appointed on 28.8.82 in the PHED as work charge Khalasi and is still continuing till date. By virtue of long service rendered by the Petitioner, the services of the Petitioner deserves to be regularised. 24. Mr. P.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 187(K) 2000 and W.P.(C) No. 2(K)/2001 submitted that all the 121 Petitioners in the writ petitions were appointed on regular scale of pay. Their service books and GPF were also opened and all other facilities were provided to the Petitioners and, therefore, the case of the Petitioners deserves to be regularised. The learned Counsel also submitted that he fully supports the contention of Mr. Their service books and GPF were also opened and all other facilities were provided to the Petitioners and, therefore, the case of the Petitioners deserves to be regularised. The learned Counsel also submitted that he fully supports the contention of Mr. B.N. Sharma that the Petitioners in these 2 writ petitions are also similarly situated like all the connected writ petitions, and therefore, there is no ground for the Respondents to refuse regularisation for the services of the Petitioners. 25. Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Sr. Addl. Govt. Advocate at the very outset submitted that the Petitioners were appointed on work charge basis without any sanctioned posts. The appointments were made in excess of the sanctioned posts and by this excess appointments the State Govt. had to bear a heavy financial burden for payment of salaries of the writ Petitioners. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that the Govt. has introduced a scheme for voluntary retirement and that as many as 170 has opted for the VRS scheme introduced by the Govt. Therefore, the learned GA. submitted that the Petitioners could have availed the scheme which was framed by the Govt. for their own benefit. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that the Govt. has constituted a Committee vide Notification dated 29.7.2003 to examine the issue of regularisation of services of the work charge employees in various departments and to submit its recommendation to the Govt. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that on the basis of the Act the Govt. has constituted a committee on 23/4/2001 and after the committee was constituted the case of the work charge employees were placed before this committee for consideration. The Committee is headed by the Addl. Chief Secretary of the State. After the constitution of this Committee the cases of the work charge employees in the State including that of the Petitioners is now under consideration of the said Committee. Therefore, the Govt. Advocate submitted that since the matter is seized by the committee constituted by the Govt., the matter regarding regularisation of the services of the Petitioners may also be left to this Committee to complete the process. 26. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Appellants v. Piara Singh and Ors. etc. Therefore, the Govt. Advocate submitted that since the matter is seized by the committee constituted by the Govt., the matter regarding regularisation of the services of the Petitioners may also be left to this Committee to complete the process. 26. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Appellants v. Piara Singh and Ors. etc. Respondents reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 laid down the guidelines for regularisation of services as follows: The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be. So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. 27. In the case of State of Manipur and Ors. Appellants v. K. SH Ibohal Singh. Respondent reported in1997 2 GLT 209 in paragraph 12 of the judgment the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: We, are unequivocally of the view that the term "contract appointment" must be terminable at some stage of their service. But if contract appointment continued uninterruptedly till the age of superannuation as is happened in the case at hand, the character of the contract appointment automatically changes and the employees has to be treated under the normal Government service rules, entitling them pensionary benefits. But if contract appointment continued uninterruptedly till the age of superannuation as is happened in the case at hand, the character of the contract appointment automatically changes and the employees has to be treated under the normal Government service rules, entitling them pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the stand taken by the Appellant Government that the Respondents were on contract service and therefore, even if they retire on attaining the age of superannuation they will not be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits is unacceptable. If they are on contract service their services could have been terminated when they are still youthful and they could have been gainfully employed in some other avocation. But then, alter using their entire services, and draining out their energy, and when they are aged, old and infirm and incapable of functioning, allowing them to go empty handed is an invasion of mandate of Articles 14 and 21. Right to live has been interpreted as right to live with dignity. Unless citizens have means for sustenance right to live with dignity will have no meaning. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant are therefore rejected as untenable in law. 28. A Division Bench of this Court has also dealt with a case of this nature in Achyut Ch. Pathak and Ors. Appellants v. State of Assam and Ors. Respondents reported in 2000 (1) GLT 243whereby the State of Assam by Notification dated 20.4.95 decided to regularise the appointment of those work charge casual employees who were appointed before 01.04.1993. The employees who were appointed after 01.03.1993 had approached this Court and the Division Bench dealt with the case of those employees who were appointed after 01.04.1993 had observed in paragraph 15 of the judgment as follows: 15. In view of the discussion held above, it is quite obvious that no directions of any kind can legally be given in this regard. It is in the realm of taking a policy decision of the State Government. There cannot be any justification for making appointments in excess of the requirements and against the clear directions of the State Government not to appoint any such staff after a particular date. Flouting of such instructions by some officers creates problems for all. It is in the realm of taking a policy decision of the State Government. There cannot be any justification for making appointments in excess of the requirements and against the clear directions of the State Government not to appoint any such staff after a particular date. Flouting of such instructions by some officers creates problems for all. So far employees are concerned, they hang on in uncertainty without accrual of any right for regularisation in absence of any sanctioned post, or in some cases, entry into the service against the rules. Though it was indicated in the order issued by the Government dated 20.4.95 that action be taken against the erring officers, but, in fact, whether any action was taken or not is not known. The officers who have authority to appoint must act responsibility. The problem arising out of such breach is manifold. Those who are working since long can be considered for regularisation only under any valid scheme, statutory provisions or policy decision, not otherwise. But it cannot be said that it does not affect others, at all. The right to be considered for public employment available to all, stands restricted. Therefore, the concerned officers have to realise the seriousness of the matter and must act in accordance with law and the instructions of the Government, so that, all concerned may be saved of avoidable problem. If the Government sets any guidelines or issues any instructions for compliance of the officers of the Government, it is also for it to see that they are faithfully complied with. 29. In a welfare State the Government has to act strictly as a model employer for the welfare of its employees. The Petitioners who were unemployed were looking for employment in their young age and are willing to accept any appointment/employment. Once they get the appointment, they accepted the same with the hope that they are secured being employed by the State. After they had served for some years a hope has been inspired on them that their services shall be regularised. They were settled with their families and the families have also settled down to accommodate its needs according to the emoluments received by the bread earner. The employee and the family have been placed at a certain status in the society according to the emoluments of the employee. They were settled with their families and the families have also settled down to accommodate its needs according to the emoluments received by the bread earner. The employee and the family have been placed at a certain status in the society according to the emoluments of the employee. The employee has spent his youth in the service of the State. By allowing the employee to continue in service for long years, the employee has also become age hatred to look for any alternative job. After the employee had rendered service for a long period, the best part of his life had been used by the State on the one hand. On the other hand the employee had also gained sufficient experience after long years of service. In such a situation it would amount to exploitation of the service of the employee if he is asked to leave the service or refused to regularise his service after the prime of his life was utilized by the State. Therefore, in such a situation it would not be right, just or proper for the authorities to throw away the employee or refuse regularisation of his service. 30. In the instant case the Petitioners were also appointed when they were young and by now they have completed services for a period ranging from 10 to 25 years. They were all age barred. Their families were also settled according to their emoluments earned by them. Therefore, once the appointment continued for long, the services has to be regularised. The provision of job security to the employee is the duty of the State and by providing this job security the State would get the best of services from the employee and that will be in terms of the philosophy and concept of Article 41 of the Constitution. 31. With regard to the contention of Respondents that the Petitioners were appointed without sanctioned posts and they cannot be regularised as there are no vacancies, it is observed that the Petitioners were appointed from time to time since the year 1984-85 onwards. The Government did not try to stop the appointments nor take any action against the officers who issued the appointment orders; but instead the Government allowed the Petitioners to continue in the service for a long period and paid their emoluments and other service benefits regularly. The Government did not try to stop the appointments nor take any action against the officers who issued the appointment orders; but instead the Government allowed the Petitioners to continue in the service for a long period and paid their emoluments and other service benefits regularly. No attempt was made by the Respondents to terminate the services of the Petitioners when they were young and eligible for seeking alternative employment. This clearly shows that the Government also felt the need for allowing the Petitioners to continue in service and their services were required by the Government for the regular flow of water supply in various districts in the State. 32. The Petitioners were engaged at key points to ensure regular supply of water from the PHED and till date the Petitioners are continuing in the same capacity for ensuring the regular supply of water in the State. Moreover, from the records it is seen that while these writ petitions were pending before this Court, the Respondents still continued to issue appointment orders to the post of Khalasi on temporary ad hoc basis in the year 2000-2001 as appearing from the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioners. Therefore, this action of the Respondents runs contrary to their contention that the Petitioners cannot be regularised as there were no vacancies. Instead of regularising the services of the Petitioner new fresh appointments were made by the Respondents. Therefore, the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioners cannot be regularised as there was no vacancy is not acceptable. 33. Admittedly the State has framed the Nagaland Work Charge and Casual Employees Regulation Act. 2001 which came into force from 01.04.2001 and that at present a committee headed by the Additional Chief Secretary has been constituted vide Notification dated 29.7.2003. Therefore, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Appellants v. Piara Singh (Supra), the case of the Petitioners may similarly be considered for regularisation of their services in terms of the scheme framed by the State Govt. under the Act. 34. Therefore, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Appellants v. Piara Singh (Supra), the case of the Petitioners may similarly be considered for regularisation of their services in terms of the scheme framed by the State Govt. under the Act. 34. These writ petitions are therefore disposed of with the following directions: (a) the cases of the Petitioners who are in service shall be placed before the committee for consideration for regularisation of their services within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of this order by the Respondents, the Commissioner and Secretary PHED and the Chief Engineer, PHED, if not already placed. (b) The cases of the Petitioners shall be considered by the Committee individually on the basis of seniority cum-merit and in doing so the Committee shall adopt all positive approach coupled with an empathy for each employee. The Committee shall submit its report to the Secretary, PHED within 2 (two) months from the date the cases of the serving Petitioners were placed before the Committee. (c) The entire process for regularisation of the services of the serving Petitioners shall be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the report from the Committee by the Respondents, particularly by the Respondent No. 1 Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Public Health Engineering Department and the Respondent No. 2 the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Nagaland, Kohima. With the above directions these writ petitions are disposed of.