JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. Two groups of Seasonal Employees of Nagaland Sugar Mills Company Limited (for short 'NSMC') (now defunct) have approached this Court for judicial reprieve to get their retiral benefits from the aforesaid Company. The first writ petition has been filed by as many as 30 persons; whereas 21 employees are the applicants in the next writ petition. 2. All the aforesaid writ Petitioners were seasonal employees of NSMC, Dimapur. The said Company was a Government Undertaking. The sugar mill was closed in the year 2001. Thereafter the seasonal employees and the State of Nagaland came to an understanding that the employees will be treated to have gone on Voluntary Retirement Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the leaders of the seasonal employees and the representatives of the NSMC. It was followed by issuance of order No. NSMC/MD/GEN-1/2002 dated 4.12.2002 by the Managing Director of NSMC Ltd., ordering that the employees will be covered by Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS'). The negotiated settlement was approved by the Cabinet on 30.5.2002 after final closure of the NSMC on 30.9.2001. By virtue of this order the employees were deemed to have released from service with effect from 30.9.2001. 3. After the winding-up of the NSMC, the entire liability to pay arrear salary, bonus and benefits under VRS Scheme came upon the State of Nagaland. However, the State failed to fulfill its obligation by way of redeeming its liability. After great persuasion and strenuous efforts, the seasonal employees could obtain sanction of a sum of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- (Rupees one crore twenty three lakhs three thousand and five hundred eighty). This amount was released by the Director, Industries and Commerce, Nagaland, Kohima vide Cheque No. 331998 dated 23.4.2004 drawn on State Bank of India, Lerie Branch, Kohima. The peculiar feature of this cheque was that it was issued in the name of Shri Shihovi Sumi, who represented the seasonal employees as the Ex-Chairman of an ad hoc committee constituted for limited purpose to get release of the retiral benefits. The other special feature of the cheque was that it was a bearer cheque and the cheque was encashed directly, allegedly by the said Shihovi Sumi on 26.4.2004. Out of this total amount of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- only a small amount was disbursed to few seasonal employees and that too through the underground extremists. The other special feature of the cheque was that it was a bearer cheque and the cheque was encashed directly, allegedly by the said Shihovi Sumi on 26.4.2004. Out of this total amount of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- only a small amount was disbursed to few seasonal employees and that too through the underground extremists. Major chunk of seasonal employees, who were non-locals, did not get their share of retiral benefits. After unsuccessfully raising their voice before the concerned officers of the State, the aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Basically in both the writ petitions an order in the nature of Mandamus has been sought for so as to direct the Respondents to pay the arrear amounts due to the Petitioners. 4. In W.P. (C) No. 9387/2004 and W.P. (C) No. 1234/2005. The writ petitions were initially filed at the Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court at Guwahati. It were numbered as W.P. (C) No. 9387/2004 and W.P. (C) No. 1234/2005. On transfer to Kohima Bench, the writ petitions have been renumbered as W.P. (C) No. 13(K)/2005 and W.P. (C) No. 67(K)/2005 respectively. In the former writ petition other than the State and its officers, one Shri Visheke has also been impleaded as Respondent No. 7. He was the Chairman of the ad hoc committee for seasonal employees of NSMC on the date of release of the money. In the later writ petition one Shihovi Sumi has also been impleaded as Respondent No. 5. The gentleman was the predecessor of Visheke of the said ad-hoc committee. 5. Both the writ petitions have been contested by the State as well as by private Respondents. The State has filed its common affidavit-in-opposition, which is a part of W.P. (C) No. 67(K)/2005. Both the private Respondents have also filed their respective counters. 6. In W.P. (C) No. 1235/2005, this Court vide order dated 18.2.2005 directed that this writ petition will be heard together alongwith the W.P. (C) No. 9381/2004. By virtue of this order, both the writ petitions were tagged together and also heard by me jointly. I am also disposing of both the writ petitions by this common judgment/order since facts and legal service involved in both the writ petitions are almost identical and one and same. 7. By virtue of this order, both the writ petitions were tagged together and also heard by me jointly. I am also disposing of both the writ petitions by this common judgment/order since facts and legal service involved in both the writ petitions are almost identical and one and same. 7. It may be mentioned here that in W.P. (C) No. 67(K) of 2005, the Petitioners had engaged lawyers from Gauhati. However after transfer of the case to Kohima Bench, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners became irregular and finally stopped appearing since last one year. Hence, Shri N. Mozhui, learned Counsel for the private Respondents raised a preliminary objection that since the writ petition is not being pursued by the Petitioners, it should be dismissed for default. In my considered opinion this objection is not tenable in law as well as on facts. I have already mentioned earlier that this Court had directed vide an order dated 8.2.2005 that both the writ petitions will be heard together and as such one set of Petitioners cannot be deprived of the relief which is being granted to other set of writ Petitioners. This Court also cannot lose sight of the revolution being taking place in the writ jurisprudence. Now a days writ petitions are being entertained even at the instance of third persons, which are commonly known as Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Even suo moto cognizance of infringement of fundamental rights are also being taken by the High Courts, more particularly if people from lower strata of the society are victims. Precisely, the theory of "locus standi" and the normal rule of giving judicial relief only if writ petitions are filed by the aggrieved persons no longer holds the field. In a good number of judicial pronouncements from the Apex Court, it has been held that all similarly situated persons should be handed down judicial relief evenly and under certain situations even non applicants can also get the same benefit, which are given to a particular Petitioner. Hence non representation of the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 67(K)/2005 is immaterial and the said writ petition cannot be dismissed on a technical ground that the lawyers have not turned up. Hence the objection is hereby overruled. 8. Hence non representation of the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 67(K)/2005 is immaterial and the said writ petition cannot be dismissed on a technical ground that the lawyers have not turned up. Hence the objection is hereby overruled. 8. Reverting back to the merit of the case, I find that having realized a serious foul play and swindling of a big amount of money, which belonged to poor employees, this Court directed the Commissioner of Vigilance, Govt. of Nagaland to hold an inquiry to find out who had received the money and where had the said money gone. This direction was given vide order dated 25.4.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 3(K)/2005. As per the direction of this Court one Shri Shiwoto Wotsa, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagaland investigated the case. The said Investigating Officer seized good number of documents and also examined as many as 12 persons, including the private Respondents in the aforesaid two writ petitions. After enquiry the report was submitted to this Court vide letter dated 6.7.2007. The relevant concluding observations of the Investigating Officer are reproduced below: From the above findings it appears that the following persons have some knowledge about the disbursement of an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) of VRS Supplementary Additional bills of Staff Retaining, Return TA Bonus 95-96 out of the total amount of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- For the remaining amount of Rs. 93,00,580/-, Shri Hokishe Assumi, Asstt. Director, Industries and Commerce may know from the person to whom he gave the cheque No. 331998 dated 23.04.04 amounting to Rs. 1,23,03,580/- and drawn the money from the bank and also from the person who gave him the APR for payment of the VRS Supplementary additional bills amounting to Rs. 1,23,03,580/- 9. It is the case of the State Respondents that the cheque for Rs. 1,23,03,580/- meant for disbursement of retiral benefits including payment as per VRS to Ex-Seasonal Employees, was handed over to Visheke Sema, Chairman of the so called ad hoc committee of seasonal ex-employees of NSMC on 26.4.2004. It is also the case of the Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the said Chairman was personally responsible to distribute the money and deposit Actual Payment Receipts (APRs) in the office. However, the money receipts were not submitted in the office till the date of filing of the affidavit by the Respondents on 11.5.2006. It is also the case of the Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the said Chairman was personally responsible to distribute the money and deposit Actual Payment Receipts (APRs) in the office. However, the money receipts were not submitted in the office till the date of filing of the affidavit by the Respondents on 11.5.2006. However, during the investigation, the I.O. was handed over the APRs of 157 employees by the Director of Industries and Commerce and it was accordingly seized on 11.5.2007. The I.O. also seized cheque book, cash book and few letters and documents alongwith the APRs from the aforesaid officer. Strangely, the affidavit of official Respondents is totally silent to explain the anomaly in issuing a bearer cheque and that too to an unauthorized person. The aforesaid Respondents are also stoically silent as to why payments were not made to the employees personally according to the financial rules of the State and as to why no step was taken to obtain money receipts from the said Visheke, whom the cheque was allegedly handed over by the Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce. It is also not clear from the affidavit of the State as to why the cheque was handed over of Visheke when the cheque was prepared in the name of Shihovi Sumi. 10. The defense of Visheke, Chairman of the ad hoc committee, is that the Director of Industries and Commerce had asked him to visit the office on 27.4.2004 to take the payment. However, before going to the office he received a telephonic call from a member of NSCN (IM) (viz, Azheto) to meet him in the residence of Shri Khekiho, Minister of Industries and Commerce. It is also the case of the aforesaid Respondent that when he arrived at the residence of the Minister alongwith the Secretary of the Committee, he was told to go to the residence of one Visheto, another member of the said organization. Accordingly, both these Visheke and Baban Rai (Secretary) went to the house of Visheto (extremist) and they were told to receive only Rs. 30 Lakhs. It is also the case of Visheke that he declined to accept Rs. 30 Lakhs against the sanctioned amount of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- and was ready to return without money. However, on being persuaded by the Secretary he again went to the house of the underground miscreant. 30 Lakhs. It is also the case of Visheke that he declined to accept Rs. 30 Lakhs against the sanctioned amount of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- and was ready to return without money. However, on being persuaded by the Secretary he again went to the house of the underground miscreant. By that time the miscreant viz. Visheto had already disbursed a sum of Rs. 13,69,000/- to 12 employees and 3 unauthorised persons. The remaining amount of Rs. 16,31,000/- was handed over to him. Out of the said amount he distributed a sum of Rs. 12,95,298/- to some of the employees on first come first basis and the balance amount of Rs. 3,35,702/- was handed over to Baban Rai, Secretary of the ad-hoc committee for making payment to the remaining employees. In other words, this private Respondent viz. Visheke has denied encashing the cheque from the bank and getting the entire money of Rs. 1,23,03,580/-. 11. Now I shall turn to the defense of another private Respondent viz. Shihovi Sumi, who was the ex-Chairman of the ad-hoc committee. The case is that he was removed from the post of Chairman of the ad hoc committee with effect from 7.4.2004. This fact is not disputed by the new incumbent viz. Visheke. Be that it may, a copy of the resolution dated 7.4.2004 has also been annexed with the counter affidavit showing that Shihovi Sumi was replaced by Visheke. Although in the counter affidavit, the aforesaid private Respondent has not spoken anything about his involvement in the money transaction, the Vigilance report reveals that this Respondent had vigorously pursued the matter to get release of VRS Supplementary Bills etc. for a period of two years. This Respondent had also given statement before the Vigilance Officer. According to this Respondent, the Secretary of the ad-hoc committee Baban Rai had given him a proposal to share the entire amount at the ratio of 50:50. However, when the proposal was turned down he was removed from the post of Chairmanship. From the Inquiry Report of the Vigilance it also appears that the private Respondent Shihovi had also deposed before the I.O. that he was also claiming a sum of Rs. 68,000/- for incurring expenditure in getting the amount released from the office. In this way the possibility of getting a little part of the booty cannot be totally denied. From the Inquiry Report of the Vigilance it also appears that the private Respondent Shihovi had also deposed before the I.O. that he was also claiming a sum of Rs. 68,000/- for incurring expenditure in getting the amount released from the office. In this way the possibility of getting a little part of the booty cannot be totally denied. It should also be born in mind that the cheque was issued in his name and it was also encashed under the signature of Shihovi. 12. Learned Counsel for all the Respondents reiterated what they have stated in their respective affidavits. At this stage it would be proper to mention one discrepancy which has been noticed in the affidavit of Respondent No. 7 viz. Visheke. In his affidavit this Respondent has stated that he had distributed a sum of Rs. 12,95,298/- to the employees and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,35,702/- was given to Baban Rai; whereas before the Vigilance Officer this Respondent had stated that the entire money was disbursed by him to as many as 67 employees. 13. Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 14. During the last two decades the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts of India have given a new shape, meaning and direction to the doctrine of right to life', enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the celebrated case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stretched the definition and meaning of 'right to life' in the following words. .... The position now is that Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful and it is for the court to decide in exercise of its constitutional power of judicial review whether the deprivation of life or personal liberty in a given case is by procedure, which is reasonable, fair and just or is otherwise... 15. The aforesaid interpretation of Article 21 has been thoroughly approved and adopted in umpteen number of cases in India. 15. The aforesaid interpretation of Article 21 has been thoroughly approved and adopted in umpteen number of cases in India. Similarly, in the case of Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1987 SC 2117 the Apex Court has declared that getting shelter is also a fundamental right. Further widening the area of fundamental rights in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board (ii) Professor Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62 . The Apex Court has declared that right to excess to potable drinking water is also fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak AIR 1992 SC 1701 , the Apex Court has held that right to speedy trial also emanates from Article 21. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802 the concept of keeping labours on bondage has been declared as infringement of Article 21 and the Apex Court has held that the State is under the constitutional obligation to assure that people live with dignity and free from exploitation, more particularly when such people belong to weaker sections of the community. 16. Coming to the question of right to get pension and retiral benefits by the employees on time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1409 has held that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. In this case it has also been held that, pension is 'property' under Articles 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the Constitution (these clauses stand repeated). This view was reaffirmed in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130 , wherein the Apex Court has restated that pension is not compensation for loyal service rendered in the past but pension also has a broader significance in that it is a measure of socio and economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. In my considered opinion the aforesaid illuminating observations are equally applicable to the payment of arrear salary and other retiral benefits. 17. In the light of the progressive definition of 'right to life' enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court I find no hesitation to hold that right to get pay, wages, and other in service and retiral benefits also flow and stems out of fundamental rights embraced in Part-III and more particularly in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I am of the considered view that any unexplained delay in payment of the aforesaid service benefits would amount to violation and infringement of Article 21. Keeping in mind this legal principle I now proceed to examine the case of the writ Petitioners. 18. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents the following facts appears to be undisputed by either side: i) Cheque No. 331998 dated 24.4.2004 for a sum of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- was collected by Shri Hokishe Assumi, Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce from the cashier of the office. ii) The aforesaid cheque was issued in the name of Shihovi Sumi; iii) The bearer cheque was encashed from the Bank on the very date of release of the same from the office i.e. on 27.4.2004. iv) The cheque was encashed by some person under the signature of Shihovi Sumi; v) The sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs reached the hands of underground miscreants and the same was disbursed to few employees, partly from the house of militants and partly through Visheke. vi) The alleged payment was not made to the employees personally as per the procedure; 19. Now two questions arise before me to be examined. Firstly, whether the entire sum of Rs. 1,23,03,580/- have been disbursed to the employees. Secondly, whether the writ Petitioners have reached their dues. 20. As noted earlier the State Respondents have admitted the fact that payment was not made to the employees personally, obtaining their signatures in the payment register. Their only defense is that the cheque was handed over to the Chairman of ad hoc committee. In my considered opinion since a group of persons are alleging that they did not receive any money receivable by them on account of VRS and their retiral benefits, the State Respondents were duty bound to produce sound, cogent and acceptable evidence to prove that all the employees had received the money. In my considered opinion since a group of persons are alleging that they did not receive any money receivable by them on account of VRS and their retiral benefits, the State Respondents were duty bound to produce sound, cogent and acceptable evidence to prove that all the employees had received the money. The affidavits in opposition for the State Respondents were filed in the month of May, 2006 and till then they did not receive money receipts (APRs) from the Chairman of ad hoc committee. However, during the investigation one set of APRs showing payment of the entire money to 157 employees was seized from the possession of the Director of Industries and Commerce. If this was so the aforesaid officer, who has been impleaded as Respondent in both the cases ought to have filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he received the APRs after more than 3 years. Except this set of APRs, there is no evidence to take a concrete view that the entire money was actually disbursed. The Enquiry Report clearly reveals that only a sum of Rs. 30.00 Lakhs was distributed and that too to a few employees, including non-genuine persons. 21. The fact of producing APRs of 157 employees after more than 3 years itself is a sufficient ground to disbelieve the document. Besides this, after going through the entire set of APRs I find that in many cases some other persons had received the payment for and on behalf of the employees. Besides this, I have also compared the signatures of the writ Petitioners with that of the seized APRs and find that the signatures of the writ Petitioners given in Vakalatnama did not match with the signatures given in the APRs. A bare perusal of the seized document clearly shows that document (APRs) has been prepared with fictitious signatures. I also find that during the investigation the Chairman of the ad hoc committee had also stated that they were forced to sign a bill sheet and nearly 60% of the signatures in the said bill sheet were signed by Baban Rai in Hindi. Hence, I hold that the APRs produced by the Director of Industries and Commerce before the I.O. is nothing but a concocted, fabricated and fictitious document. Hence, I hold that the APRs produced by the Director of Industries and Commerce before the I.O. is nothing but a concocted, fabricated and fictitious document. If this document is left out of consideration, there is no other evidence to hold that the writ Petitioners had received their due amount. 22. As discussed earlier, the Chairman of the ad hoc committee has stated that he had distributed a sum of Rs. 16,31,000/- by himself as well as through Baban Rai. This Respondent has enclosed photo copies of receipts of payment in four pages. The first ground to disbelieve these receipts is that the first page, containing payment to 15 persons was admittedly made by the undergrounds and not by the Respondent. A comparison of the style of writing of names in page one is almost identical to the names written in other pages. Hence it appears to me that the entire receipt chart was prepared in one sitting. This apart, a good number of signatures of the recipients do not tally with the signatures of the writ Petitioners. I also find that most of the writ Petitioners name do not reflect in the money receipts produced by the private Respondent. Besides this many signatures are missing against particular employees names. Above all at least there is no money receipt of as many as 22 persons, whose payment was allegedly made through Baben Rai, Secretary of the committee. Besides this many signatures are missing against particular employees. In addition to these deficiencies I find that the Chairman has paid a sum of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs to one Baban Rai on account of certain expenditures and not against his retiral benefits. This amount can not be allowed to be adjusted against the dues of the employees. Similarly in the list of 15 persons a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been paid to 3 extremists. Hence neither the Chairman of the ad hoc committee viz. Visheke has been able to prove that he had properly distributed at least a sum of Rs. 16,31,000/-, as claimed by him. Despite my best efforts I could not reconcile all the contradictory documents to find that any of the writ Petitioner had received his monetary benefit nor the counsel for the parties could show this. 23. Visheke has been able to prove that he had properly distributed at least a sum of Rs. 16,31,000/-, as claimed by him. Despite my best efforts I could not reconcile all the contradictory documents to find that any of the writ Petitioner had received his monetary benefit nor the counsel for the parties could show this. 23. It has been repeatedly said in various judicial decisions that salary or any kind of retiral benefits is neither a bounty nor a charity by the State. Hence the State Respondents must have acted sincerely to release the monetary benefits due to the ex-seasonal employees of NSMC promptly. Besides this these Respondents ought to have taken extra care to see that the amounts actually reach in the hands of the employees keeping in mind that almost all of them were illiterate and coming from lowest strata of the society. However, on the other hand all the concerned officers as well as few leaders of the seasonal employees took the benefit of illiteracy of the employees and all of them appears to have siphoned-of and swindled a big amount of more than Rs. One Crore. Hence, it is a fit case to direct the State to pay the retiral benefits to the writ Petitioners directly. 24. During the course of writing of this judgment one more question kept me hounding. The question is should the writ petitions be closed with a direction of payment of monetary benefits to the Petitioners or some more directions, including a re-investigation by C.B.I. is called for. What I find that, despite proved forgery, defraud, cheating and misappropriation of big amount of Government money the Vigilance Officer carried out the investigation in a very casual and slip-shod manner. For the best reasons known to the I.O. he did not make any attempt to find out as to who had actually en-cashed the cheque from the Bank. The I.O. has also failed to come to a precise conclusion as to who had actually misappropriated/embezzled the money, except small amount of payment to genuine employees. The I.O. has also committed an error in accepting that payment of Rs. 30.00 Lakhs was made to genuine persons. I also fail to understand as to what prevented the I.O. to interrogate the Minister whose name figured in the alleged involvement from the statements of few witnesses. The I.O. has also committed an error in accepting that payment of Rs. 30.00 Lakhs was made to genuine persons. I also fail to understand as to what prevented the I.O. to interrogate the Minister whose name figured in the alleged involvement from the statements of few witnesses. As a whole I also find that the report has been submitted to this Court on the basis of the half-cooked investigation. The Vigilance Officer also appears to have submitted a vague report protecting and shielding the actual culprits involved in swindling of Government money including Government Officers. The I.O. has also totally side-tracked the role of the concerned Minister in the entire scandal. Under such circumstances, the enquiry report of Vigilance can not be accepted in toto. Since, an enquiry has already been conducted by the premier police agency of the State there is no option before me to hire the services of any other agency other than that of Central Bureau of Investigation. The direction to re-investigate the case by the CBI has also been issued keeping in mind that the State Vigilance Department could not do effective investigation, may be due to involvement of influential persons. 25. In view of my discussions made hereinabove, I give the directions: (A) The State of Nagaland is directed to pay retiral benefits due to the writ Petitioners, which include payments as per VRS scheme etc. within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. If the payment is not made within this period, the amount shall carry interest @ 8% P.A. from today. (B) The payment shall be made through Account Payee Cheque to each and every writ Petitioners separately, since the employees have already been retrenched after closure of the Sugar Mill. If possible learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners shall also furnish their Bank Account number to the Government. (C) The State Government is directed to recover the money to be paid to the writ Petitioners, as per this judgment, from the erring Government Officers and other persons. (D) The State of Nagaland is also directed to take/initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the officers who were involved in the scandal as well as for financial indiscipline/misconduct in releasing a big amount without adhering to approved procedure. (D) The State of Nagaland is also directed to take/initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the officers who were involved in the scandal as well as for financial indiscipline/misconduct in releasing a big amount without adhering to approved procedure. As agreed to by the learned Government Advocate, 3 months period is given to the State to act upon this order for initiating disciplinary proceeding. (E) The Director of Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to reinvestigate the fraud in larger perspective including in the following areas: (a) to investigate as to why the normal procedure of payment of salary, retiral benefits, bonus etc. was deviated by the Director and other officers of Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Nagaland; (b) as to why bearer cheque was issued in the name of one Shihovi Sumi, who was not representing any registered society of seasonal workers of NSMC; (c) to ascertain as to who had withdrawn the money from Bank against cheque No. 331998 from SBI, Lerie Branch, Kohima; (d) to find out the officers and other persons involved in misappropriating the money and preparing forged documents to show payment of money to 157 employees. (e) to ascertain whether any kick-back/pay-off was given to Government Officers or to the Minister for release of Rs. 1,23,03,580/-. 26. The CBI Investigating Officer shall submit its Final Report/Charge-sheet in appropriate Court. Such report may be submitted in the Special Designated Court at Dimapur, which has been presently constituted for such cases. One copy of the report should also be submitted to the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland for further action and also to this Registry for information and further direction if so necessary. 26.1. The CBI is directed to take up the investigation as early as possible and make an endeavour to complete the investigation within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order. 26.2. The State of Nagaland and its officers shall extend all cooperation in the investigation including appearance before the I.O. and producing documents, which may be relevant for the investigation. 26.3. The Registry of Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court is also directed to hand over the entire set of investigation report of the vigilance department, its documents and also copies of the writ petitions and affidavits of Respondent to the I.O. of the CBI, as and when asked for. 27. 26.3. The Registry of Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court is also directed to hand over the entire set of investigation report of the vigilance department, its documents and also copies of the writ petitions and affidavits of Respondent to the I.O. of the CBI, as and when asked for. 27. With the aforesaid directions both the Writ Petitions stand allowed. The Registrar of Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench is directed to keep the Vigilance Enquiry Report in her safe custody. The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment to Shri T.B. Jamir, Central Government counsel within a period of one week from today, who shall transmit the same to the CBI Headquarter promptly. It is mentioned here that this judgment was passed in presence of learned CGC. 28. One copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the Vigilance Enquiry Report, should also be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland immediately for his necessary action, as per the directions given hereunder this judgment. Petition allowed