JUDGMENT AND ORDER : L.S. Jamir, J. W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016 and W.P (C) No. 124 (K) of 2016 having identical facts and the relief’s sought being the same are disposed by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P (C) No. 124 (K) of 2015 were serving as Driver Grade-II and Handyman under the Nagaland State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") and the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016 was serving as Compressor Operator under the Corporation. While the petitioners in both the writ petition were serving as such, the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department (Budget Branch) issued an Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005 offering Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "VRS") in respect of employees of the State Public Sector Enterprises. The said offer for VRS was to remain in force up to 31-03-2007 unless extended by the Government for any further period. All the petitioners offered for the VRS sometime in the year 2007. The applications in respect of the petitioners for VRS in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005 was forwarded by the Corporation to the Government for taking necessary steps. 3. Thereafter, the Government conveyed its approval to allow the petitioners to go on voluntary retirement under the VRS with effect from 01-12-2009. One such approval is the approval letter dated 24-11-2009 (Annexure C-2 to W.P (C) No. 124 (K) of 2016) written by the Officer on Special Duty to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Geology and Mining and addressed to the Managing Director of the Corporation. Further, by another communication dated 24-10-2011, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Geology and Mining Department wrote to the Managing Director of the Corporation stating that the VRS cannot be allowed to implement without definite purpose or objective as it amounts to giving undue favours to the employees. It was further stated that if the Corporation has excess drivers then the petitioner No.1 can be transferred to the Secretariat Transport Pool where there is shortage of drivers. The petitioner No. 2 may also be transferred to the Secretariat Transport Pool including the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016. 4. It was further stated that if the Corporation has excess drivers then the petitioner No.1 can be transferred to the Secretariat Transport Pool where there is shortage of drivers. The petitioner No. 2 may also be transferred to the Secretariat Transport Pool including the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016. 4. On the basis of the approval given by the Government as well as the communication dated 24-10-2011, the Corporation issued Offer of Choice dated 04-11-2011 asking the petitioner to go and serve in the Secretariat Transport Pool in the event they do not want to be under the Corporation. In terms of the Offer of Choice, the petitioners submitted their acceptance of Offer of Choice and gave their willingness to work in some other Departments under the Nagaland State Government. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the Corporation by communication dated 22-11-2011 wrote to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland Department of Geology and Mining stating that all the three petitioners were willing to serve in the Secretariat Transport Pool. Consequently, the Officer on Special Duty to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Geology and Mining by communication dated 22-09-2012 addressed to the Managing Director of the Corporation conveyed the approval of the Government to utilize the services of the three employees in the Secretariat under the terms and condition that they shall continue to contribute to the provident fund and their salary shall be paid from the Secretariat establishment. 5. The Managing Director of the Corporation in terms of the letter dated 22-09-2012 released the services of the three petitioners with effect from 31-10-2012 by release order dated 26-10-2012. The same was addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Geology and Mining. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their joining report before the respondent No. 2. In the meantime, Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005 providing for VRS was also extended up to 31-03-2012. 6. The Officer on Special Duty to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Geology and Mining wrote another letter to the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department on 14-03-2013 stating that the petitioners had applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 21-07-2009 and after completion of formalities, Draft Cabinet Memo was put up to the Chief Secretary/respondent No.1, who in turn directed them to be deployed at Secretariat establishment which has been approved by the Chief Minister. It was also stated that till date, the matter could not be sorted out after they have been released from the Corporation and the petitioners are facing hardships in not getting their pay from both ends. Again, by another communication dated 24-07-2013, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department wrote to the respondent No.3 informing that the transfer of the petitioner to the Secretariat Administration may not be possible since there is no such post to accommodate them. The respondent No. 3 was therefore, requested to refer the matter to the Transport Department for accommodating the petitioners. Further, by another communication dated 15-10-2013, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Geology and Mining Department wrote to the Managing Director of the Corporation conveying the approval of the Government to release the petitioners under the VRS. 7. Despite all the communications and being already released from the Corporation, no steps were taken by the respondents and the salaries were also not paid to the petitioners with effect from 01-11-2012. The petitioner in W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016 therefore preferred W.P (C) No.16 (K) of 2014 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 07-02-2014 directing the petitioner therein to make a fresh representation before the respondent within seven days from the date of the order. It was further directed that the respondents shall dispose of the representation in accordance with the Rules and Procedures within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. However, nothing has materialised from the exercise taken despite representation being made by the petitioner therein. 8. Considering the difficulties faced by the petitioners, the Managing Director of the Corporation also made a communication dated 07-03-2014 addressed to the respondent No. 3 bringing out in detail the facts and circumstances of the case leading to the release of the petitioners from the Corporation and non-appointment of the petitioners by the Government. In the meantime, the Finance Department also rejected the case of the petitioners for proceeding on VRS by its U.O Note dated 13-06-2014. A further step was taken by the Managing Director of the Corporation by forwarding a Draft Cabinet Memo on VRS for the petitioners by communication dated 14-10-2014 which was addressed to the respondent No.3. In the meantime, the Finance Department also rejected the case of the petitioners for proceeding on VRS by its U.O Note dated 13-06-2014. A further step was taken by the Managing Director of the Corporation by forwarding a Draft Cabinet Memo on VRS for the petitioners by communication dated 14-10-2014 which was addressed to the respondent No.3. The respondent No. 3 thereafter, prepared a Cabinet Memorandum for consideration of the case of the petitioners to proceed on VRS. However, after the Cabinet Memo was placed before the Cabinet, the same was not approved by the Cabinet which was communicated by the Office Memorandum dated 14-07-2015 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat (Cabinet Cell). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petitions has been preferred. 9. Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Mhabeni, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P (C) No. 124 (K) of 2016 as well as Mr. Likhase Sangtam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents in both the writ petitions as well as Mr. N. M. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 in W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016 and for the respondent No. 5 in W.P (C) No. 124 (K) of 2016. 10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P (C) No. 124 (K) of 2016 submits that all the three writ petitioners were appointed on regular basis by the Corporation. It was after the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2015 offering VRS, the petitioners had opted to proceed for VRS. The offer of the petitioners was forwarded by the Corporation to the Government and thereafter the Government had given its approval for allowing the petitioners to proceed on VRS. Further, despite the approval given by the Government, a contrary decision was taken that the VRS cannot be extended to the petitioners and another decision was taken to accommodate them under the Secretariat Transport Pool by communication dated 24-10-2008. It was on the basis of the said communication that the Offer of Choice was given by the Corporation which was also accepted by the petitioners. It was on the basis of the said communication that the Offer of Choice was given by the Corporation which was also accepted by the petitioners. The Government had thereafter conveyed its approval to utilize the services of the three petitioners in the Secretariat by approval letter dated 22-09-2012 and on that basis, the Corporation had released the petitioners by release order dated 26-10-2012 with effect from 31-10-2012. It is also submitted that no fault has been committed by the petitioners and that it was on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005 that the petitioners have accepted to proceed for VRS. Further, as the Government again took another decision to accommodate the petitioners under the Secretariat Transport Pool, the petitioners had therefore, given their acceptance to the proposal made by the Government and which was further approved by the Government. Therefore, the petitioners were released from the Corporation on the basis of the approval given by the Government to accommodate them under the Secretariat Transport Pool. The petitioners are left hanging inasmuch as, the Government is refusing to allow them to proceed on VRS nor is the Government accommodating them into the Secretariat Transport Pool despite the approval given by the Government. It is also submitted that on the basis of the release order dated 26-10-2012, the petitioners have not been paid their salaries with effect from 01-11-2012 till date. The indecision of the Government had therefore, infringed upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners and therefore, a direction should be given to the respondents to forthwith accommodate the petitioners into Secretariat Transport Pool as already approved by the Government. Mr. Likhase Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 27 (K) of 2016 adopts the submissions made by Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel. 11. Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate submits that though the approval was given for deployment of the petitioners, the Corporation had already released the petitioners before the matter can be taken up with the Government and as such, there were some procedural lapses and therefore, appointment order could not be issued to the petitioners. Thereafter, by letter dated 15-10-2013 approval was conveyed for release of the three petitioners under the VRS and a proposal was also submitted for issuance of Drawal Authority in respect of the petitioners who had applied for VRS. Thereafter, by letter dated 15-10-2013 approval was conveyed for release of the three petitioners under the VRS and a proposal was also submitted for issuance of Drawal Authority in respect of the petitioners who had applied for VRS. However, the same was turned down by the Finance Department by its observations made vide U.O No. 58 dated 13-06-2014 with further observations that the Department should not process the case of the VRS as the VRS Notification dated 12-12-2005 has expired with effect from 31-03-2012. She further submits that the case of the petitioners for allowing them to proceed on VRS were also put up before the Cabinet however, the Cabinet did not approve the said proposal. In that view of the matter, the petitioners could not be accommodated by the respondents nor can the VRS be extended to them. It is also submitted that the Department of Geology and Mining had written to the Managing Director of the Corporation by a letter dated 02-11-2015 stating that the case of the petitioners may be reprocessed for VRS as and when the period for grant of VRS to State Public Sector Enterprises is further extended by the Government. She, therefore, submits that the case of the petitioners would be considered as and when the VRS is extended in the near future. 12. Mr. N.M. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the Corporation has already released the petitioners with effect from 31-10-2012 by release order dated 26-10-2012 in terms of the approval given by the Government for accommodating them in the Secretariat Transport Pool. He, therefore, submits that as the services of the petitioners were already released from the Corporation, the Corporation is not liable to pay the salaries of the petitioners nor can the Corporation take back the petitioners back into service. 13. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The present case is a unique one which has arose due to the indecision of the Government. It was the Government through the Finance Department that had issued the Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005 extending VRS in respect of the employees of the State Public Sector Enterprises. On the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005, the petitioners had given their offer to proceed on VRS. It was the Government through the Finance Department that had issued the Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005 extending VRS in respect of the employees of the State Public Sector Enterprises. On the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 12-12-2005, the petitioners had given their offer to proceed on VRS. Thereafter, the Government by communication dated 24-11-2009 had conveyed approval to allow the petitioners to go on VRS. Further, by communication dated 24-10-2011 written by the Geology and Mining Department, it was further proposed that as the VRS cannot be extended to the petitioners, their services can be accommodated under the Secretariat Transport Pool. Therefore, after giving their option, the Corporation had released the petitioners services by release order dated 26-10-2012 with effect from 31-10-2012. 15. The release of the petitioners from the service of the Corporation was made on the assurance given by the Government to accommodate them under the Secretariat Transport Pool. Further, Home Department by communication dated 24-07-2012 expressed their inability for transfer of the petitioners to the Secretariat Administration and request was also made to the respondent No. 3 to refer the matter to the Transport Department. While the Government was indecisive in the matter, again, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Geology and Mining Department issued a letter dated 15-10-2013 conveying the approval of the Government to release the petitioners under VRS. The Finance Department by its U.O No. 58 dated 13-06-2014 had again advised the Department not to process such cases as the VRS Notification has already expired on 31-03-2012. From the records, it is also seen that a Cabinet Memorandum was put up before the Cabinet for considering the case of the petitioners to proceed on VRS which was however, not approved by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 13-07-2015. 16. The release of the petitioners from the service of the Corporation was on the basis of the Government approval as well as the assurance given for accommodating them in the Nagaland Secretariat Transport Pool. The petitioners, due to the indecision of the Government are left hanging without salaries with effect from 01-11-2012. The Government is a model employer and is not expected to act in the manner that has been done in the present case. The petitioners, due to the indecision of the Government are left hanging without salaries with effect from 01-11-2012. The Government is a model employer and is not expected to act in the manner that has been done in the present case. It is for the respondents to decide either to allow the petitioners to proceed on VRS or to accommodate them under Secretariat Transport Pool as already proposed by the Government. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer without salaries in the manner that has been done. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remanded back to the Government to take a final decision in the matter as to whether to allow the petitioners to proceed on VRS or to accommodate them in any Department as deemed fit. Such decision should be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court by the respondents. It is made clear that in the event the Government decides to allow the petitioners to proceed on VRS, such benefits shall be calculated as if the petitioners were in service without any break. The respondents are further directed to release the salaries of the petitioners with effect from 01-11-2012 till date. This shall also be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court by the respondents. 18. With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. 19. No costs.