JUDGMENT : SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J. 1. Heard Ms. Vesutolu Therie, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Work-Charged Labor, in the Department of Public Health Engineering, Government of Nagaland, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, P.H.E. Champang, Mon District, vide Order No. CGE/PHE/2-3/04-05/334-44, dated 31.08.1984, with scale of pay of Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three hundred) per month with effect from 01.09.1984, in place of one Shri Angba Konyak, who submitted his resignation. After serving for several years under the same service condition, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Kohima Nagaland (respondent No. 3) on 07.09.2015, praying for upgradation of his pay to scale pay. However, in spite of his request, there was no change in the condition of his service. Being helpless, the petitioner continued in service but while he was on the verge of his retirement, on completion of 35 years of service, he submitted a representation on 08.08.2019 to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Kohima, Nagaland, to regularize his service. But this time also no positive response came from the respondent. Soon thereafter, on 03.09.2019, vide Order No. EE/PHE/M/EST-3/WC/2006-07/465-70, issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Mon, he was released from service with effect from 30.09.2019, on completion of 35 years length of service, in terms of section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009, read with the related Government Notification No. AR-3(GEN/174/2007)(Pt), dated 07.08.2009. Being aggrieved that his service was not regularized at least for the purpose of enjoying pension and pensionary benefits, the petitioner is here before this Court praying for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction directing the respondents to regularize his service so that he may atleast enjoy pension and pensionary benefits. 3. Ms. Therie, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the case of 380 similarly situated persons, the respondents, at one time, had upgraded their monthly pay to grade pay but in the petitioner’s case, the same has been denied, therefore, the act of the respondents amount to discrimination. 3. Ms. Therie, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the case of 380 similarly situated persons, the respondents, at one time, had upgraded their monthly pay to grade pay but in the petitioner’s case, the same has been denied, therefore, the act of the respondents amount to discrimination. In support of her submission, the learned counsel referred to the information received from the Additional Chief Engineer and PIO for the Department of PHED, in response to the RTI application of the petitioner wherein the names of 380 (three hundred eighty) employees, their designation, date of joining service and date of granting them Grade pay are given. In that, many of them were junior to the petitioner. Ms. Therie, learned counsel also submitted that, the respondents had also regularized the service of at least 195 (one hundred ninety-five) Work-Charged employees of the Department who were all junior to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that out of those 195 employees, the service of at least eight persons were regularized the same day they were appointed as Work-Charged employees and the length of service of 29 of them were below 10 years and all of them were junior to the petitioner and they also did not complete 30 years of service. Therefore, the petitioner has been clearly discriminated among similarly situated persons. In support of her submission, the learned counsel referred to the RTI reply letter of the Additional Chief Engineer and PIO, Office of the Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland, No. CE/PHE/RTI/2005, dated (not visible) March, 2021. The information furnished to the petitioner and which is annexed along with the additional affidavit supports the submission of the learned counsel. 4. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 Live Law (SC) 187, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after observing that, after utilizing the service of an employee for 30 years and thereafter contending that the employee who has rendered 30 years of continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable in a welfare State had upheld the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat. Therefore, the petitioner, whose service was used for 35 years, is also entitled to the same relief. Therefore, the petitioner, whose service was used for 35 years, is also entitled to the same relief. The contents of the Order referred to are as follows: “It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 5. Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has no dispute against the facts and circumstances of the case as submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner, but submitted that the persons whose services were regularized in the Department as referred to by the learned counsel of the petitioner was done in pursuance to various directions issued by this High Court and under a scheme and, that too, after the retirement of the petitioner, therefore the petitioner cannot take advantage of such order. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the Government of Nagaland has a scheme for regularization of Work-Charged employees which is provided in the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-201/2009, dated 17.03.2015, issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch) and as per this Memorandum, two things are required for regularization of Work-Charged employees: (1) That the employee should have worked for 30 years length of service as on 01.01.2015. (2) The employee should have been enjoying scale of pay. But in the case of the petitioner, he did not fulfill the second criteria. Therefore, he is not eligible for regularization. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. (2) The employee should have been enjoying scale of pay. But in the case of the petitioner, he did not fulfill the second criteria. Therefore, he is not eligible for regularization. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances which have not been disputed: (i) The pay of 380 Work-Charged employees, majority of whom were junior to the petitioner were upgraded to scale of pay by the Department, leaving aside his case, inspite of the application submitted to the respondent No. 3. (ii) The service of 195 persons, who were all junior to the petitioner, were regularized and that too without meeting the requirements of the provisions of the Office Memorandum referred to by the learned Government Advocate; (though all these happened after the retirement of the petitioner) I am of the view that the petitioner has been discriminated. Since the petitioner had served the Department without any break for so many years, he should have been given the same benefit when he had asked for it. Even without asking, the State as a model employer and under a democratic form of Government and being a welfare State should have done it. Having not done so amounts to exploiting its own citizen for 35 years and releasing him empty handed. The fact that his service was utilized till he completed 35 years of service, by which any person serving under the Government of Nagaland is to retire shows that his service was not only required but fully utilized. If a person’s service is required and utilized he should have been given what he deserved. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, when he retired enjoyed, only Rs. 3450/- per month as pay. It is difficult to imagine how he would have struggled all his life to look after his family members. After having led such a life, to let him go empty handed cannot be reasonable. Slavery and forced labor are things of the past but it appears that for some people they still suffer from such practices. It is difficult to imagine how he would have struggled all his life to look after his family members. After having led such a life, to let him go empty handed cannot be reasonable. Slavery and forced labor are things of the past but it appears that for some people they still suffer from such practices. Therefore, in similar cases, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 241/2021, W.P. (C) No. 242/2021, W.P. (C) No. 243/2021, W.P. (C) No. 244/2021, W.P. (C) No. 245/2021, W.P. (C) No. 246/2021, W.P. (C) No. 247/2021, W.P. (C) No. 248/2021 and W.P. (C) No. 249/2021, this Court on 24.03.2022 had allowed the prayer of the persons who are similarly situated as the petitioner, and directed the State Government to consider regularization of their services for pension and pensionary benefits. 8. Taking into view the Order passed in those nine Writ Petitions and the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given above, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner, praying for regularization of his service so that he may enjoy pension and pensionary benefits is a legitimate prayer. 9. In view of all that has been stated above, the Writ Petition is hereby disposed off with a direction that the respondents should regularize the petitioner’s service within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, so that he will at least enjoy pension and pensionary benefits, after all those years of dedicated service rendered to the State.