JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate representing the State respondents. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 129(k) of 2007 whereby the writ petition as filed in representative capacity by the President and the General Secretary of All Nagaland PWD (R & B) and (H) Work Charged Employees Association was dismissed on the premises that the nature of disputed facts as projected by the rival parties cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking direction on the State-respondent for releasing the salary for the month of September, 2003, October, 2003 and November, 2003 to the Work Charged employees who are as well the aggrieved members of the petitioner-association and who discharged their duties as the work charged under the PWD (R & B) and the Housing Department. Previously, another writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by the order dated 17.11.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 87 (K) of 2003 alongwith another writ petition with the following directions: in the above facts and circumstances, these two writ petitioner are disposed of with the direction that the concerned respondents shall verify the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioners in respect of the due salaries of all the work charged employees for the said three months of September, 2003, October, 2003 and November, 2003 and that if there is any due salary of any of work-charged employees in respect of the said three months or portion of the said three months, the respondents shall take all necessary steps for making payment of the due salary to the concerned employees as expeditiously as possible. The whole exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with copy of each of the writ petitions. The petitioners are directed to submit a certified copy of this order to each of the concerned-respondents along with a copy of their respective writ petitions for information and necessary action. 3. The writ petitioner took all steps as directed to be taken by the said order dated 17.11.2006. The petitioners are directed to submit a certified copy of this order to each of the concerned-respondents along with a copy of their respective writ petitions for information and necessary action. 3. The writ petitioner took all steps as directed to be taken by the said order dated 17.11.2006. Even thereafter, no positive result has surfaced. On the contrary by the Notification dated 16.02.07, as available at Annexure-B to the writ petition, the Government has taken the following decision: This is to notify that in complying with the direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench Judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 passed in W.P.(c) No. 87(k) of 2006 and W.P. (c) No. 88(k) 2006, verification for all the work charged employees attendance of PWD (R & B) and PWD (Housing) in all the division for the month of September, 2003, October, 2003 and November, 2003 was carried out by the Executive Engineers who are the controlling officer and from the record submitted by the controlling officers it was ascertained that none of the work charged employees of both the department had attended their duties on the said 3(three months) as such payment of salaries for work charged employees does not arise for that period. 4. It appears further from the minutes of the meeting of Officers of PWD (R & B) with the Hon'ble Minister, W & H and Mechanical, Commissioner & Secretary (W & H) and Contractors of PMSGY held on 19th and 20th January, 2007, where it was decided that the Field Officers were responsible for the Audit Paras, reply to Court cases, submission of monthly account, disposition of the work charged and the regular staff respectively. 5. In addition thereto, it was also observed that for the Court case pertaining to payment of three months' work-charge salary (leave without pay) for the period of September, 2003, October, 2003 and November, 2003, all Executive Engineers were informed to submit their statement along with the Non-pay register (Pay Roll Register) to the Chief Engineer (R & B) Office immediately latest by the end of January, 2007 without fail, failing which to submit the required information would attract disciplinary action. Further, it was directed that the task should be taken on priority as the reply was immediately required by the Government and the High Court. 6. Further, it was directed that the task should be taken on priority as the reply was immediately required by the Government and the High Court. 6. Thereafter it appears from the communication dated 30.03.2007 as available at Annexure-E to the writ petition that the reports were not furnished within the time prescribed, as a result reminders were issued. Ultimately, the impugned order at Annexure-B was issued but the basis was even not disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State- respondents. 7. The leaned GA appearing for the State respondents has categorically submitted that there was no such Pay Roll Register. What surprised us the most is that how such statements then were made at Annexure-B to the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has narrated the entire gamut of the controversies including the contention of the writ petitioners and thereafter holding the observations at paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 the writ petition was dismissed. Those passages are excerpted as under: 17. The fact of attendance by the work-charge employees, with required determination by this Court has been disputed by the State Government. Learned Counsel for the State respondents further pointed out that since the fact of the members of the petitioners' association attending their duties during the aforesaid period of three months is disputed by the State Government, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue a blanket direction for payment of salary to the individual members of the association without adjudicating the issue in question. 18. As a matter of fact, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for enforcement and not for establishment of rights or title of any individual. Further, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted into the civil suit to adjudicate disputed question of fact. In the present case, admittedly, around 13,000 Work-Charge employees are involved and their attendance in the office during the aforesaid period of three months is disputed by the respective heads of the department by submitting individual reports. To ascertain attendance or non-attendance of individual employees by scrutinizing all such reports, would be a stupendous task which would require adjudication. In the present case, admittedly, around 13,000 Work-Charge employees are involved and their attendance in the office during the aforesaid period of three months is disputed by the respective heads of the department by submitting individual reports. To ascertain attendance or non-attendance of individual employees by scrutinizing all such reports, would be a stupendous task which would require adjudication. As a matter of fact, attendance or non-attendance of the employees in the office is a question of fact which can be proved in an appropriate forum by adducing evidence, either oral and for documentary. On the other hand, disputed questions of fact so raised have efficacious alternative forum for remedy. The disputed question of facts raised by the State Government involves attendance by the work-charge employees in various types of engagements at various locations, within the State. Therefore, for a writ Court it would not be possible to determine the fact of attendance by individual Work Charge employees by perusing and scrutinizing the materials available on record. 19. There are catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court in respect of the role of the High Court, in adjudicating a disputed question of fact, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (a) New Satgram Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 124 and in (b) D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 386 , have discouraged the writ Courts in deciding disputed question of facts when facts and circumstances of each case is seriously controverted. In D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where the basic facts are disputed, the writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The right course for the High Court is to dismiss the writ petition on the preliminary ground without entering upon the merits of the case, in the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it is hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. 8. When confronted, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the W.T. Message at Annexure-A, it further appears that instead of releasing the wages for the said period of three months, the State respondents had decided to grant leave without pay for the period of three months w.e.f. 01.09.03. Similar decision had also taken on 01.09.2003. 9. 8. When confronted, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the W.T. Message at Annexure-A, it further appears that instead of releasing the wages for the said period of three months, the State respondents had decided to grant leave without pay for the period of three months w.e.f. 01.09.03. Similar decision had also taken on 01.09.2003. 9. From the additional counter affidavit filed by the State respondents, it transpires that there are many fake employees among the work charged staffs. Moreover some of the work-charged employees as being represented by the respondent-writ petitioner have already opted for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'VRS' for sake of brevity). As per the scheme formulated by the State Govt. at para 4 in particular, the Govt. is also amid the process of verifying the VRS applicants in order to settle the VRS payments. It is anticipated that a substantial number of fake employees would be detected during that process. Even if it is assumed that the work charged employees had worked for the months of September, October and November, 2003 it would be necessary to sort out the genuine employees by a transparent process. These averments substantiate the substantial part of the claims of the work charged employees as projected in the writ petition. 10. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred on taking proper leave from this Court some of the Muster Rolls of the work charged employees of one division and showed that from the said period of three months, the work charged employees attended their duties. As such the averment of the State-respondents as excerpted herein cannot be said to be based on records and on proper scrutiny. We are not satisfied with the exercise taken by the PWD (R & B) and the PWD (Housing) for verification of the claims. The plea as resorted to by the State-respondents is not founded as it appears, on any genuine exercise. Moreover, the decision of the appropriate authority in the Govt. to grant them leave without pay for the three months also indicates that the claim of the petitioner are genuine otherwise there could not have been any reason for granting leave without pay to the work-charged employees working on contingency, else they are not entitled to have the leave without pay. 11. to grant them leave without pay for the three months also indicates that the claim of the petitioner are genuine otherwise there could not have been any reason for granting leave without pay to the work-charged employees working on contingency, else they are not entitled to have the leave without pay. 11. The attending circumstances lead us to the irresistible inference that the work charged employees working in various projects of the PWD (R & B) and the PWD (Housing) had worked during that period and may be in some cases some of the work charged employees were prevented from working without any sustainable reason. 12. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the subject matter may somewhat be enjoined by the disputed questions of fact. But this Court is not completely bereft of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the law has been carved out distinctly in this regard. 13. There is no universal rule or principle of law which debars the writ Court entertaining adjudications involving the disputed questions of fact. In fact, in the realm of theory, no question or issue would be beyond the adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even if such adjudication would require taking of oral evidence. However, as a matter of prudence, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution normally would not entertain such dispute which would require it to adjudicate contested questions and conflicting claims of parties to determine the correct facts for due application of law. 14. In ABL International & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.; as reported in 2004 (3) SCC 553 , the Apex Court while re-affirming the law as enunciated in Gunwant Kaur Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, as reported in 1969 (3) SCC 769 and Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, as reported in 1970 (1) SCC 582 has reinforced as under; 16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda 1969 (3) SCC 769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in a writ petition this Court held: 14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons. 15. In Gunwant Kaur Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatindra (supra), which has followed Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. 15. In Gunwant Kaur Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatindra (supra), which has followed Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council/(supra), the Apex Court held that: Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary. XXXX 19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the Court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur (supra) this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact. 16. We are therefore inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal and accordingly the same is set aside. 17. We direct the State respondents on making proper verification of the work charged employees of the PWD (R & B) and the PWD (Housing) with the help of the Sectional Assistant who are entrusted with the supervision of the work charged employees, if required to compare their identity with any of identity documents as acknowledge by the Election Commission of India (EC) and thereby on weeding out the fake persons from the list, to release the wages for the months of September, 2003, October, 2003 and November, 2003. 18. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that after due verification, the list of the work charge employees has been updated by the concerned authority and which has been separately placed before this Court. 18. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that after due verification, the list of the work charge employees has been updated by the concerned authority and which has been separately placed before this Court. If it is found therefrom that no further verification is required, the State-respondents may act on the said list for purpose of releasing wages for the month of September, 2003, October, 2003 and November, 2003. It is however made clear that the work charged employees who opted for VRS shall also be entitled to the benefits indicated above. We further direct the State-respondents to complete the entire exercise within a period of 6(six) months from this day. 19. With the above observation and directions, this appeal stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.