S.C. Das, J.:— The four writ petitions, mentioned above, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking identical relief, and therefore on the prayer of the learned counsel of both sides those were clubbed together and heard simultaneously and hence, this single judgment shall govern all the writ petitions. 2. Writ PetitionNos.99 (K) of 2009,3(K) of 2010 and 4(K) of 2010 were filed by the recognized Service Associations of Work-Charged and Casual Employees Associations and Writ Petition No. 10 (K) of 2010 filed by two individuals. 3. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Tali Ao for the writ petitioners and learned Government Advocate, Mrs. Lucy for the respondents. 4. In a short compass, the case of the writ petitioners is that the Government of Nagaland from its inception had/has been in practice of appointment of work-charged and casual employees on regular pay scales at par with regular employees holding posts of the corresponding categories and had/has been posting such work-charged employees in different establishments of the State Government. All along, such work- charged and casual employees were employed with regular pay scales and their pay also was revised at the time of revision of pay scales time to time upto the Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1993 (ROP Rules, 1993), notified on 25.11.1993 w.e.f. 01.06.1990. There was no grievance of such work-charged employees since they were in continuous service with regular pay scales at par regular Government employees. During the ROP Rules 1999, which was notified on 08.09.2009 w.e.f. 01.06.1998, the work-charged employees excluded from the purview of ROP Rules, and as a result, they were deprived of revision of their pay time to time. Pay of regular employees was revised after Fourth and Fifth Pay Commission, but no benefit was provided to the work-charged employees. To regulate the services of work-charged and casual employees, the State Government brought "Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001 (hereunder mentioned as the "Act of 2001") which came into force on 15.06.2001 and under that enactment the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Commission was constituted and the Commission submitted Third Detailed Report on 25.07.2002 with specific recommendation for absorption of the work-charged employees into regular Government service and also to pay them the pay scales with increment, etc., but the recommendation of the Commission was not complied by the State Government. After sitting over for more than two years, the State Government issued Office Memo, dated 22.09.2004 (Annexure-D to the writ petition), and thereby, notified that 50% of the available vacancy of regular posts arising in a year should be reserved for regularization of work- charged employees on the basis of seniority and merit, but other recommendations regarding pay scale/wages, etc. and other benefits as recommended by the Commission were not given. The work-charged employees had/has been working in different Departments continuously for ten to twenty nine years and in support of such service the petitioners annexed numerous documents in respect of appointment of work-charged employees on regular pay scales, promotion of such employees, etc. It is also alleged by the petitioners that direct regular appointments to the posts in Grade-IV and Grade-III of the Government services are made by choice at the whims of the appointing authorities without following any selection tests and public advertisement, etc. and there is no difference in the method between the appointments of work-charged and casual employees and the direct regular appointees. It is further stated that the work-charged employees appointed on regular pay scales are also entitled to equal pay to that of the regular employees on the fundamental principles of "equal pay for equal work" applicable to them. The State Government was bound to consider for revision of pay and allowances of the work-charged and casual employees on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission. But the Government utterly failed to do so. The petitioners in their respective writ petitions, therefore, prayed for following reliefs:- (i) To pass orders directing the respondents to consider the recommendation made by the Commission vide their Third Report dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) for revision of the pay, wages and allowances of the work-charged and casual employees at par with other employees of the Government. (ii) To direct the respondents to consider for framing of special scheme for absorption of the work-charged and casual employees into regular Government service. 5. Respondents filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, stating that there is a difference between the work-charged employees and the regular employees. The nomenclature itself denotes that work-charged employees are against specific works and their jobs are seasonal and temporary in nature. 5. Respondents filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, stating that there is a difference between the work-charged employees and the regular employees. The nomenclature itself denotes that work-charged employees are against specific works and their jobs are seasonal and temporary in nature. They are guided by the Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulations Act, 2001 whereas the regular employees are appointed against sanctioned post on regular basis under the respective rules and are appointed on regular basis under the respective service rules observing well defined rules and procedures. It is further stated that the regular employees are guided by the respective ROP Rules and the work-charged employees are guided by the Work- Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001. However, the matter of revision of pay of work-charged and casual employees was/is also under active consideration with the Government and for this purpose, Government has already reconstituted the Work-Charged and Casual Employees Commission vide Notification No. AR-3/ GEN-201/2009 dated 26.11.2009. The revision of pay and other service conditions of work-charged and casual employees will be dealt with on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission, which is expected within a reasonable time. It is also stated that as a first step, the Government has revised the rate of wages of fixed paid work-charged and casual employees to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month w.e.f. 01.12.2009. On the basis of the recommendations of the Commission, the Government will take further necessary action in streamlining the service conditions of work-charged and casual employees, besides revision of pay, salaries and wages. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Tali Ao representing the writ petitioners made a detailed submission on the working and financial condition of the work-charged and casual employees under the State Government. It is submitted by learned counsel that the position of work-charged employees under the Government of Nagaland cannot be equated with the position of work-charged employees elsewhere in the country. Here, the work-charged employees were appointed not for a particular work and/or a particular job for a particular time but for working under the Government in the respective Departments and were attached with definite job like that of the regular employees and the work-charged employees were also appointed on regular pay scale similar to that of the regular employees. Here, the work-charged employees were appointed not for a particular work and/or a particular job for a particular time but for working under the Government in the respective Departments and were attached with definite job like that of the regular employees and the work-charged employees were also appointed on regular pay scale similar to that of the regular employees. He has also submitted that for appointment in the lowest grades, i.e. Gr- III and Gr-IV, no advertisement ever made by the State Government and no selection tests also made whereas time to time appointments were made as a work-charged employee and a regular employee at the whims of the authorities. Upto ROP 1993 the pay of work-charged employees were also revised time to time, but from ROP 1999 the work-charged employees were arbitrarily excluded from the purview of the ROP Rules, 1999, and they have been continuously deprived of the financial benefits and their services were also not regularized. Learned counsel has further submitted that under the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001, there is a provision to set up a Commission, and accordingly, a Commission was set up, which submitted its Third Report on 22.09.2004, making definite recommendations but the State Government was sitting over the recommendations and did not implement it, and after more than two years, came out with an Office Memorandum with some sorts of reservation for regularization, which is not at all workable. The said Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) cannot be termed as a "scheme" for absorption/regularization of services of the work-charged employees. Learned counsel further submitted that the mandate of the Constitution is "equal pay for equal work", but that has been ignored in the State of Nagaland and the work-charged employees have been deprived of their minimum needs and sufferings - financially as well as with all uncertainties of life though they are performing similar work to that of the regular employees. They have been illegally discriminated, and therefore, learned counsel prayed for issuing appropriate direction as per prayer of the writ petitioners. They have been illegally discriminated, and therefore, learned counsel prayed for issuing appropriate direction as per prayer of the writ petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the State Government is bound to make a scheme to absorb/regularize the services of work-charged employees in one go and that the Office Memo, dated 22.09.2004 cannot be termed as a 'scheme' as intended by legislature under the Act of 2001, and that pending absorption/regularization of service, they should be given all service benefits including regular pay scale, revision of pay, etc. at par with the regular employees. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case reported in 2009(7) SLR 191 : Union of India & Ors. Vs. Parul Debnath & Ors., and the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 . 7. Learned Government Advocate, Mrs. Lucy submits that the condition of the work-charged employees was/is under active consideration of the State Government and it is not correct to say that the State Government is ignoring their interest. She submits that to protect the interest of the work- charged employees, State Government already formulated scheme as declared vide Annexure-D to the writ petition and regarding payment of their salaries, the State Government is considering it and it is expected that after the recommendation would be made by the Commission, which has been reconstituted, appropriate steps will be taken. 8. Following points emerged for consideration and decision before this Court- (I) Whether the work-charged employees, working under different Departments of the State Government, are entitled to be absorbed or regularized in one go and whether Annexure-D to the writ petition can be termed as a "scheme" as required under the Act of 2001 ? (II) Whether the work-charged employees under different Departments of the State Government are entitled to regular pay scale and/or entitled to the increase of their pay and wages time to time at par with regular employees and whether the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable to them? DECISION ON POINT NO. (I) 9. In the case of Jaswant Singh & Ors., VS. DECISION ON POINT NO. (I) 9. In the case of Jaswant Singh & Ors., VS. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1979)4 SCC 440 , the Apex Court while dealing with the matter of work-charged employees held that- "A Work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff are chargable to 'works'. The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the work. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are entitled to the benefits of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act..... Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servants like the other petitioner, who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatory benefits." In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 118 where the Apex Court has held- "So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularize 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 concern authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. Security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job." In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concern authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. Security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job." In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kunji Raman reported in (1997) 2 SCC 517 , the Apex Court held that in view of the peculiarities of a work-charged establishment pointed out by the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh's case, a work-charged establishment differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a 'work' and availability of fund for executing it. So far as employees engaged on work-charged establishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the employees of the regular establishment. A regular establishment and a work-charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the persons employed on those establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes. For that reason, if a separate set of rules are framed for the persons engaged on work-charged establishment and the general rules applicable to persons working on the regular establishment are not made applicable to them, it cannot be said that they are treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is well-settled that the Government has the power to frame different rules for different classes of employees. Therefore, the work-charged employees contention that clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 2 of RSR are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is rejected. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Jagjiwan Ram & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 661 , the Supreme Court has held that the work-charged employees can claim protection under the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any particular statute but they cannot be treated at par with the employees of regular establishment. They can neither claim regularization of service as of right nor can they claim pay scales and other financial benefits at par with regular employees. They can neither claim regularization of service as of right nor can they claim pay scales and other financial benefits at par with regular employees. If the services of a work-charged employee is regularized under any statute or a scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment from the date of regularization. His service in the work-charged establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular establishment unless a specific provision to that effect is made either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularization. In other words, if the statute or the scheme under which service of work-charged employee is regularized does not provide for counting of first service, the work-charged employee cannot claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to higher posts, fixation of pay in the higher scale, grant of increments, etc. Work-charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of employees much less regular employees. Work-charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under relevant rules or policy framed by the employer. 10. In the case in hand, the work-charged employees were engaged from the very inception by the State Government in different Departments with definite pay scale and the pay also was revised time to time till ROP, 1993. From the time of ROP 1999, they were excluded from the purview of the ROP and the Government brought the Act of 2001 for the work-charged and casual employees. The words, "work-charged employee" and "work-charged establishment" have been defined in Sections 2(d) and (e) of the Act thus:- "2 (d) 'Work-charged employee' means an employee engaged without sanctioned post under work charge establishment. (e) 'Work-charged establishment' means and includes such establishment in any department under which a person is employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from the general supervision, of a specific work or of sub-works of a specific project or upon the machinery in connection with such work or sub-works." The Act also prescribes constitution of a Commission and functions of the Commission. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the functions of ther Commission thus:- "4. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the functions of ther Commission thus:- "4. Functions of the Commission: The Commission shall, subject to the general directions of the State Government, perform any of the following functions, namely:- (a) recommend the norms and the number of Work-Charged Employees and Casual employees for any department with due regard to workload, budgetary resources and such other factors as may be considered relevant. (b) recommend for fixing wage and other conditions of service (c) recommend on any other matter as may be assigned by the State Government for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act." Section 11 prescribes the power to review the pay scale of work-charged employees thus:- "11. Power to review the scale of work charged employees: The Commission constituted under Section (3) above shall review the wage, norm and scale of work charged establishment or work-charged employees of any department from time to time as may be directed by the State Government." Section 12 prescribes the provision for scheme for absorption of service thus:- "12. Scheme for absorption of Service: The State Government may draw up a scheme for absorption of service of work-charged employees into regular Government service" 11. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 2001, as aforesaid, the Commission was constituted and the Third Detailed Report of the Commission was submitted on 25.7.2002. In paragraph 4, the Commission, inter alia, recommended thus: "While an attempt is being made in this report to do some limited exercise on reduction of work-charged and casual employees engaged by various Government Departments, the Commission would like to raise certain pertinent issues and give some general recommendations, before going into case-by-case consideration of the submissions received from the Departments: (i) The Commission takes the view that the various policy recommendations given in its Second Report should general constitute the guiding principles for the State Government's views on work-charged and casual employees' in the State. (ii) Having expressed the above view, the Commission would, however, like to observe that a completely uniform and rigid application of the work-force reduction rules may not be practicable. (ii) Having expressed the above view, the Commission would, however, like to observe that a completely uniform and rigid application of the work-force reduction rules may not be practicable. In certain cases even after reducing drastically the work-charged and casual employees there may be very substantive grounds to reduce the size of the regular posts as well, necessitated by change in the role, functions and work-load of the Departments, whereas in some areas of Government activities such drastic reduction may prove to be counterproductive. This latter aspect has become obvious in some of the Commissions' case because........ (iii) Where continuance of certain work-charged or casual employees becomes unavoidable because of regular man-power shortage in the Department and because of the regular nature of work being performed by such employees as in the Power Department, for instance, the Commission recommends that such appointments should not be called work-cherged, because they are not charged to any work. Also when such work performance runs into years, it is considered unjust and unfair that the fate and the future of such employees with their families should be left to hang in the balance indefinitely without any sense of security. In such cases, the Commission recommends as follows:- (a) Temporary posts to be created with Cabinet approval, on regular pay scale with increment facility, covered by the scheme for assured career progression, for appointment on contract/casual basis on specific condition that such posts should not be made permanent posts. (b) All benefits and conditions, except pension as available to the regular employees to be extended. (c) In case of retrenchment, downsizing or rightsizing of employees in the Department, a specific condition to be made that such post may be wasted out by the Government without any advance notice. (d) Employees against such posts to enter into a standard written agreement with the employer department incorporating all the above and other relevant conditions, renewable on completion of every service year of the employee. (e) This facility may be extended to work-charged and casual employees who have served continuously for 5 or more years, if their appointments are not otherwise wasted out. (f) For the labour class employees engaged on Work-Charged or Casual basis, the Commission recommends that the minimum wage ceilings prescribed by law should be followed." 12. (e) This facility may be extended to work-charged and casual employees who have served continuously for 5 or more years, if their appointments are not otherwise wasted out. (f) For the labour class employees engaged on Work-Charged or Casual basis, the Commission recommends that the minimum wage ceilings prescribed by law should be followed." 12. Pursuant to above recommendations of the Commission, the State Government issued Office Memo, dated 22.09.2004 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) in the form of a policy and scheme for regularizing of services of work-charged employees thus: "Government of Nagaland Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Branch) No.AR-3/Gen-67/2001(Pt) Dated, Kohima, the 22 Sept, 2004. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub:- Policy and Scheme for Regularisation of service of Wrok-Charged Employees. There are large numbers of work charged employees in various Departments. Many of these employees have been serving continuously for many years. They have been representing to the Government for regularization of their service. Some Departments have been regularizing the service of work charged employees form time to time against available vacancies. However, no transparent and rational policy and criteria is discernible in the process of regularization of service of work charged employees. Therefore, in order to examine the issue of regularization of work charged employees in various Departments, the State Government set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri. Lalthara IAS, Additional Chief Secretary (Geology & Mining). On the basis of the recommendations of the Committee for regularization of Work-Charged employees in the State, the Government thereby adopt the following policy and scheme for regularization of the service of work charge employees serving under various departments of the State Government. (i) Each Department having Work-Charged employees should maintain 'a list of work-charged employees in various categories in order of their length of service, (ii) Regularisation of work-charged employees will be done against available regular vacancies. (iii) 50% of all regular vacancies of similar nature arising in a year will be reserved for regularization of Work-Charged employees, and the remaining 50% will be filled up as per normal rules of recruitment. (iv) Work charged employees will have the right to be considered first for regularization against 50% of all future vacancies of similar nature in the Department for which they possess the requisite qualification. Such regularization will be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. (iv) Work charged employees will have the right to be considered first for regularization against 50% of all future vacancies of similar nature in the Department for which they possess the requisite qualification. Such regularization will be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. This means that the senior most work charged employee in the relevant category will be regularized subject to his/her fitness for the vacant post. (v) In case no work charged employee is found suitable for regularization in terms of the above clause(iv) the Department will obtain clearance of P&AR Department before making any fresh appointment against the quota reserved for work-charged employees explaining the circumstances for not being able to fill up the vacancy through regularization of work charged employee. (vi) No age bar would apply in cases for regularization if the Work Charged employee is below the superannuation age. (vii) Regularized Work-Charged employees will be entitled to count in full their continuous work charged service towards pension benefits. (viii) Those Departments which have not approached the Nagaland Work Charged and Causal Employees Commission should do so immediately to get the optimum strength of Work-Charged employees fixed for their Departments. They should take all possible measures including pursuing VRS option vigorously to bring down the strength of Work-Charged employees to the level recommended by the commission. (ix) Adequate provision for payment of work charged employees should be made in the budget and regular monthly payment of work charged wages ensured. (x) All new Work-Charged appointments should be banned. Any person accepting Work-Charged service in the Government would be doing so at his/her own risk. Any new work charged appointment should be treated as illegal and strict action taken against the appointing authority. In case of any unforeseen situation requiring new work charged appointments, specific approval of the cabinet must be taken." 13. Admittedly, even after issuance of above Office Memorandum dated 22.9.2004, a few thousands of work- charged employees, as submitted by the petitioners, are working under different Departments of the Government and are being deprived of proper pay and allowances. The writ petitioners narrated their position vividly as to how they are deprived and what actually they want. For ready reference, let us reproduce here the contentions of the writ petitioners made in paragraphs 19,20 and 21 of writ petition No. 99(K) of 2009, which read thus: "19. The writ petitioners narrated their position vividly as to how they are deprived and what actually they want. For ready reference, let us reproduce here the contentions of the writ petitioners made in paragraphs 19,20 and 21 of writ petition No. 99(K) of 2009, which read thus: "19. That the petitioner respectfully begs to submit that the State Government have no concern for the work-charge and casual employees to consider the escalating cost of living and the sharp rise of prices in the consumer index during the past nearly 20 years and the basic pay fixed on the basis of the economic market two decades ago is allowed to remain enforce till date which is highly arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and violative of the Constitutional mandates of equality, fair treatment, and protection against exploitation of labour and services without sufficient pay and wages. 20. That it is also respectfully begs to submit that right to equal pay for equal works may not be applicable in its strict sense between the classes of work-charged and casual employees on the one hand and the regular employees on the other. However, the present case is distinguishable by the fact that work-charged employees holding posts carrying identical pay scales as members of the regular establishment of corresponding categories have been treated at par with other regular employees all throughout the past by the statutory provisions so far as their pay and allowances were concerned. Hence, it is the legitimate expectation enforceable in law that this category of work-charged employees appointed on pay scales at the rates equal to the pay scales of regular employees and holding posts in the corresponding categories are entitled to equal pay scales to those of the pay scales of regular employees. 21. That as against the purported scheme of reservation of 50% available vacancy of regular post arising in a year as notified by the Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, for regularization of the services work-charged employees, it may be respectfully submitted that priority given to the work-charged employees for regularization on the basis of seniority and merit against the vacancy of regular posts arising from time to time was in practice right from the beginning. As such, the purported scheme notified can not be regarded as a scheme envisaged under the Act and the recommendation made by the Commission thereunder. As such, the purported scheme notified can not be regarded as a scheme envisaged under the Act and the recommendation made by the Commission thereunder. It may also respectfully submitted that if at all the State Government is sincere to alleviate the back lock created by the appointment of work-charged and casual employees, absorption of these employees into regular service on the basis of seniority, suitability and fitness under special scheme to be framed for the purpose under the Act ought to have given priority." 14. It is specifically stated by the writ petitioners that Office Memo, dated 22.9.2004 is of no consequence for regularization of services of the petitioners, since for regular appointment to the posts in Grade-III and Grade-IV there is no advertisement made by the State Government and no selection process undergone and the nature of recruitment for the work- charged and casual employees as well as direct regular employees are same. The allegation made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition No.99 (K) of 2009 to that effect has not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit in paragraph 7. Under such circumstances, though the State legislature made an enactment but the provisions of that enactment cannot be said to have strictly complied by the State Government. The Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 cannot be stricto facto said to be a scheme formulated as per the recommendations of the Commission. Section 12 of the Enactment makes a specific provision that the State Government should draw up a scheme for absorption of the work-charged employees into regular Government service, but the Memo, dated 22.09.2004 can in no way be said to be inconformity with the recommendations made by the Commission as reproduced above and also cannot be said to be an acceptable scheme formulated for the absorption of the work-charged employees, who are working continuously for the period from ten years to twenty nine years. The State Government is bound to formulate a workable specific scheme, Department wise, taking into account the number and position of the work-charged employees and a scientific scheme should be formulated to absorb them in a time bound manner. Referring to the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Parul Debnath, reported in 2009(7) SLR 797, learned counsel, Mr. The State Government is bound to formulate a workable specific scheme, Department wise, taking into account the number and position of the work-charged employees and a scientific scheme should be formulated to absorb them in a time bound manner. Referring to the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Parul Debnath, reported in 2009(7) SLR 797, learned counsel, Mr. Tali Ao submits that the absorption/regularization of the work-charged employees shall be done in one go and not in phases as stated in Memo, dated 22.09.2004. In that reported case, direction was for absorption of eligible persons in one go and not in phases as suggested by the proposed scheme. Here, in the cases of work-charged employees of Nagaland, no such scheme has been formulated and so ratio of that decision cannot be applied in the facts of these cases. It is evident that the work-charged employees of the Government of Nagaland cannot be equated with the work-charged employees, generally employed under other work-charged establishments. It is nowhere the case of the Government that the work-charged employees were employed under a work-charged establishment as defined in the Act. They have been employed under the Government Departments and they are discharging their duties like that of other regular employees, and therefore, the cases of the work-charged employees under the Government of Nagaland are distinguishable to that of work-charged employees employed for a specific work under a work-charged establishment. The Memo, dated 22.09.2004, therefore, cannot be termed as a scientific and workable scheme as intended by the Act of 2001 and it also cannot be said to be inconformity with the Commission's recommendation, and therefore, the State Government is directed to formulate a scheme scientifically with a view to regularize/absorb the services of the work-charged employees in a time bound manner. It is the obligation of the State Government to implement the Commission's recommendation unless for reasons it is absurd for the State Government to implement and to that effect a decision is to be taken up by the State Government. A scheme, taking into account all relevant factors, for absorption/regularization of services of the work- charged employees in a time bound manner should be formulated by the State Government within 6(six) months from today. DECISION ON POINT NO.(II) 15. A scheme, taking into account all relevant factors, for absorption/regularization of services of the work- charged employees in a time bound manner should be formulated by the State Government within 6(six) months from today. DECISION ON POINT NO.(II) 15. It is a undisputed fact that the work-charged employees initially were employed on regular pay scales, and upto ROP 1993 their pay and allowances were revised at par with the regular State Government employees, and from ROP 1999 they were excluded and at present they are getting the meager amount which they used to get initially twenty years ago. This is a pitiable condition of the work-charged employees. The Commission recommended that their pay and allowances should be revised but Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 is silent. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State respondents, an assurance is made that the pay and allowances of the work-charged employees will be given favourable consideration but it is submitted that nothing has been done by the State respondents as yet. It is the obligation of the State respondents to provide a modest pay and allowance to the work-charged employees that they can maintain their livelihood. 16. In view of the settled law, the work-charged employees cannot claim equal pay with that of the regular employees. The Apex Court, in the case of Federation of All India Customs &. Central Excise Stenographers & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1988) 3 SCC91, has held that "equal pay for equal work" is a fundamental right. But equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done, it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards to reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of decree and that there is element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of services. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The Apex Court reiterated the principle in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 556 . So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The Apex Court reiterated the principle in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 556 . In the case of GR Gupta & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2002) 10 SCC 658 , the Apex Court has held that there cannot be perfect equality in any matter on an absolute scientific basis and there may be certain inequalities here and there. If the clarification is correct and serves a particular purpose, the same is not to be judicially interfered with. 17. In the case in hand, though, it is argued that the work-charged employees are also performing similar work as that of the regular employees, they cannot claim the benefit, on principle, of 'equal pay for equal work', since they are altogether belonging to a different category. Their pay and allowances are to be made at par the scheme to be formulated by the Government and until their services are regularized, they should be paid at par with the Government scheme. Unfortunately, Memo, dated 22.09.2004, prescribes nothing about the pay and allowances of the work-charged employees though there was recommendation made by the Commission to that effect in Annexure-C to the writ petition as already reproduced above. Mere assurance made by the State respondents in their counter affidavit seems to be a hollow assurance, having no definite scheme therefor to provide a modest emolument to the work-charged employees, who have been working continuously for ten to twenty nine years in different Departments of the Government. The State Government, therefore, is bound to formulate a scheme to provide a modest pay/ wages with other benefits to the work-charged employees, which may not be at par with the regular employees but it must be a modest minimum amount to meet the minimum needs of the employees for their livelihood and the State Government is directed to come out with such a scheme within six months from today. 18. 18. Accordingly, the bunch of writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (i) It is the obligation of the State Government to implement the Commission's recommendations, unless for reasons, it is absurd for the State Government to implement and to that effect a decision is to be taken by the State Government. A scheme, taking into account all relevant factors for absorption/regularization of services of the work-charged employees in a time bound manner, should be formulated by the State respondents within 6(six) months from today and thereunder effective step should be taken to absorb and regularize the services of the work-charged employees. (ii) The State Government in view of the recommendation made by the Commission is bound to formulate a scheme to provide a modest pay/wages with other benefits to the work-charged employees, which may not be at par with the regular employees but it must be a modest minimum amount to meet the minimum needs of the employees for their livelihood and the State respondents is directed to come out with a scheme within 6 (six) months from today, pending absorption/ regularization of services of the work-charged employees. _____________