JUDGMENT Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. V. Chishi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. Since the matter in dispute in W.P. (C) No. 50(K) of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 133(K) of 2012 are very similar in nature, I am proposing to dispose of both the proceedings by a common judgment. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal in W.P. (C) No. 50(K) of 2013 are that the petitioner, herein, was appointed to the post of Work Charged Pipe Fitter Helper on regular pay scales on 19.05.1977 and was posted at Sitimi Town/Village. After being so appointed, the petitioner started to discharge his duties to the best of his ability and he acquired sufficient knowledge, experience and expertise in discharging his work which was so assigned to him. 3. Thereafter, by subsequent order dated 24.05.1989, the Executive Engineer (PHED), Tuensang Division, Nagaland promoted the petitioner to the post of W/C Fitter Grade-II in the scale of pay Rs. 425-9-542-10-612 EB-12-690-15-730 p.m., and was posted against the establishment of Running and Maintenance of Water Supply (R/M/W/S) in Kiphire Town. Soon after his appointment, the Service Book was opened and maintained and he started contributing towards various funds, like GPF and other contributions like regular employees. 4. The petitioner was therefore excepting that his service would be regularized one day. However, in the year 2012, he received the office order dated 23.02.2012, whereby he was forced to retire on 31.05.2012 on completion 35 years of continuous service in the terms of Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of the Nagaland Retirement from Pubic Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009. 5. While he was in active service, he had submitted representations before the concerned authority seeking for regularization of his service and he was of the opinion that his service would be regularized by the State respondents considering the facts that he had discharged his duty sincerely, dedicatedly and to the satisfaction one and all. However, his representation was not attended to. Instead petitioner was released from service on 31.05.2012 vide order dated 11.05.2012. 6. However, his representation was not attended to. Instead petitioner was released from service on 31.05.2012 vide order dated 11.05.2012. 6. Since the petitioner had rendered service to the department continuously for a period of 35 years, since he had rendered the service to the satisfaction of one and all and since his service was not regularized even after serving the department continuously for 35 years, he, therefore, approaches this Court urging it to pass necessary order requiring the State respondents to regularize his service leading to payment of pension and other pensionary benefits. 7. In W.P. (C) No. 133(K) of 2012, the petitioner was appointed as W/C Fitter Jugali on regular pay scales in the department of PHED, Nagaland vide order dated 10.08.1981. It may be stated that he was initially appointed for 3 months to the post aforesaid. However, vide order dated 21.04.1982, the petitioner was again appointed afresh to the Work Charged Fitter Grade-II on regular pay scale of Rs. 190-3-226-4-250 p.m. plus all other allowances admissible from time to time. 8. After being so appointed, he started to discharge his duties to the best of his ability, sincerely, dedicatedly and to the satisfaction one and all for which he was promoted to the post of Fitter Grade-1 vide order dated 11.06.1986. While working as above, the petitioner submitted an application to the Addl. Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland, Kohima for regularization of his service stating that he had continuously been serving the department for long 30 years as the Work Charged Fitter on regular pay scale. 9. However, his prayer was not attended to although a good number of Work Charged employees in the grade of Fitter Grade-I who were far junior to the petitioner were regularized from time to time. After serving the department for almost 31 years, the State respondents forced him to retire from service on his attaining 60 years of age with effect from 31.01.2012 in the terms of Section 3(1) of the NRPE Act vide order dated 30.01.2012 which is attached as Annexure-I to the writ petition. 10. He, therefore, approaches this Court with a request to pass necessary direction requiring the State respondents to regularize his service leading to payment of his pension and other pensionary benefits. 11. The notice was served on the State respondents. 10. He, therefore, approaches this Court with a request to pass necessary direction requiring the State respondents to regularize his service leading to payment of his pension and other pensionary benefits. 11. The notice was served on the State respondents. The State respondents have entered appearance in both the proceedings and having filed common counter affidavit contested the proceedings. 12. In their common counter affidavit, the State respondents have contended that the regularization of the Work Charged employees is regulated by Nagaland Work Charged and Causal Employees Regulation Act, 2001. According to State respondents, long years of services rendered by the work charged employees do not confer any right on them for regularization of service leading to payment of pension and pensionary benefits. But inspite of that, the State respondents have paid some other dues, such as, gratuity etc. Therefore, learned State counsel Ms. V. Chishi, submits this Court to dismiss the present proceeding. 13. I have considered the rival submissions having regard to the pleaded case of the parties and the documents attached therewith. It may be stated that in a series of cases, this Court has granted reliefs to the work charged/contingency/temporary employees who are situated similarly to that of the petitioners requiring the State respondents to regularize the services of those employees leading to payment of pension and other pensionary benefits. 14. In that connection, we may profitably perused the decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Manipur & Ors. v. KS Ibohal Singh reported in 1997 2 GLT 209. 15. The relevant part is reproduced below:-- 11. We are being disturbed that the petitioner were compelled to go on superannuation after putting in 28 and 29 years of service respectively without any pensionary and other retiral benefits. In a welfare State like us committed to a socialistic pattern of society, it is unconscionable that employer compels to go on retirement without any retiral benefits after putting a 28 and 29 years of service in the pretext of contract service. It will be hit by equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petitioners/respondents have spent the entire youthful life to the service of the State rendering valuable service to the State as an artist. It will be hit by equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petitioners/respondents have spent the entire youthful life to the service of the State rendering valuable service to the State as an artist. It will be too cruel to allow them to go empty handed when they are aged, old and infirm and incapable of earning by themselves. It is common knowledge that the Government servant work for future security. The argument that the writ petitioners accepted the appointment with full knowledge of the terms and conditions laid down in the contract and therefore, their services cannot be regularized and they are not entitled pension and other retiral benefits would amount to exploitation of labour. May be the petitioners have knowing fully well the terms and conditions of contract accepted the employment because of the compelling circumstances. State, being a model employer are not permitted to use method of exploitation against the weaker section of people. 12. We, unequivocally of the view that the term, "contract appointment must be terminable at some stage of their service. But if contract appointment continued uninterruptedly till the age of superannuation as is happened in the case at hand, the character of the contract appointment automatically changes and the employer has to be treated under the normal Government Service Rules, entitling them pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the stands taken by the appellant Government that the respondents were on contract service and therefore, even if they retired on attaining the age of superannuation they will not be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits is unacceptable. If they are on contract service their service could have been terminated when they are still youthful and they could have gainfully employed and some other avocation. But then after using their entire services drained out their energy and when they are aged, old and infirm and incapable of functioning, allowing them to go empty handed is an invasion of mandate of Article 14 and 21. Right to live has been interpreted as right to live with dignity unless citizens have means for sustenance to live with dignity will have no meaning. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant are therefore rejected as untenable in law. 16. Right to live has been interpreted as right to live with dignity unless citizens have means for sustenance to live with dignity will have no meaning. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant are therefore rejected as untenable in law. 16. Addressing a dispute of the nature of the dispute in State of Manipur & Ors, (supra), this Court in W.A. No. 12 (K) of 2009 in the case of State of Nagaland v. Ramaswami, had taken a view which is quite identical with the view rendered in State of Manipur & Ors. (supra). The relevant part is reproduced below:-- In the instant case, the petitioner continued in his service long 27 years which was not by intervention of the Court, but as was desired by the State respondents. He having rendered long 27 years of service, it cannot be said that he had been continued as a Work Charged employee or was rendering his service in a Work Charged establishment. It has been rightly argued by the Mr. Jamir, learned amicus curiae that the provisions of the Nagaland Public Work Department Code are applicable only in respect of the works undertaken by the PWD. Clause 42 of the said Code reads as follows: (a) In order to meet the demand for supervision which may arise from time to time as well to ensure that the Public Works Establishment shall be capable or construction as well as of expression as the expenditure on works diminishes of increase, the permanent establishment may be supplemented by temporary establishment to such extent as may be necessary according to the nature of the work to be done. (b) Temporary establishment includes all such non-permanent establishment no matter under what titles employed, as is entertained for the general purposes of a Division or Sub-Division or Sub-Division or for the purpose of general supervision, as distinct from the actual execution of "work or works". In the head "Work Charged Establishment" of Clause 43 of the said Code it reads as follows: ......of a specific work or of sub-works of a specific project or upon the subordinate supervision of departmental labour, stores and machinery in connection with such work sub-works, provided that as an exception to the above, Mistries employed in the interest of the Government, on the technical subordinate supervision of construction of work done through contractors will be treated as work-charged establishment. If the entertainment of work-charged establishment is contemplated in connection with any work the const. should invariably be shown as separate sub head of the estimate for that work. (b) Work Charged establishment does not include non-industrial employees such as clerk, draftsman, subordinate extra establishment of any kind for the Divisional or Sub-Divisional Officers, such being properly chargeable to the regular establishment. In the instant case, the petitioner was promoted as Jugali and as noted above, the order of promotion itself stated that he was so promoted against the post of Jugali. It is not the case of the respondents that the Office of the Executive Engineer, Dimapur Electrical Division, Dimapur was or is a Work Charged establishment. Be that as it may, the petitioner having rendered long 27 years of service, it will be unfair to deprive him of pensionary and other retirement benefits on the plea that he had rendered his service as Work Charged employee. 17. The same principle has been reiterated in some other decisions as well. In that connection, one may refer to the decisions, rendered by this Court in the case of the Smti. Lensalemla Sangtam v. State of Nagaland & Ors. (WP (C) No. 72(K) 2012), in the case of Mr. Khruvosto v. State of Nagaland & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 123(K) of 2012) and in the case of Smti. H. Nitoli Shohe v. Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland (W.P(C) No. 93(K) of 2011). 18. Coming back to our case, I have found that the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 50 (K) of 2013 had served the department continuously for long 35 years whereas the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 133(K) 2012 had served the department for 31 years continuously. Despite their services having been utilized for such a long period, the State respondents have forced them to retire from service almost empty hand. This is not only unfortunate to say the least, as held in many decisions, aforementioned but also flagrant violation of the petitioners right to live, much less to have "dignified life" after serving a indifferent government throughout their lives. 19. Since similarly situated persons, who were forced to retire without their services being regularized, had already been granted the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits, in my opinion, the petitioners herein are also entitled to similar benefits. 20. 19. Since similarly situated persons, who were forced to retire without their services being regularized, had already been granted the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits, in my opinion, the petitioners herein are also entitled to similar benefits. 20. Consequently, the present proceedings are allowed with the following directions:- (1) The respondent No. 2 and 3 are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners so that they can claim their pension and other pensionary benefits in accordance with relevant Service Rules. (2) The petitioners would render all possible cooperation required for giving effect to the direction at Sl. No. 1. (3) The respondent No. 2 and 3 would complete the entire process aforesaid within a period of 6 months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. With the above observations and directions, these proceedings are disposed of, of course, no cost.