JUDGMENT : 1. This application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Mr. Heshito Sema for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to regularize his service and also direct the respondent authorities to pay the scale of pay in terms of ROP-2010 and the ROP-2017 with arrears. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner was initially appointed as Work-Charged employee in the fixed pay @Rs.1200/- per month under the Establishment of Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Works Division, Kohima, Nagaland w.e.f. 01.12.1995, vide order, dated 15.12.1995, No. TPWD/Estt/W/C-95/100. Therafer, vide order, dated 28.03.1996, he was granted scale of pay @Rs.800-1475/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1996 and posted as Jugali. Thereafter, he was transferred and attached to the office of the S.O. (TPWD, Dimapur). Since the early part of the year, 2017, he has been stationed at construction site of the integrated slum housing development programme at Burma camp and he continues to serve in the same capacity. Thereafter, the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2007 has been enacted to deal with the service condition of the work-charge/casual/ temporary employees. Thereafter, on 17.03.2015, the respondent authorities have issued one Office Memorandum, dated 17.03.2015, wherein, it is prescribed that all work charge and casual employees receiving scale of pay are to be regularized upon completion of 30 years or more of continuous service as on 01.09.2015, subject to fulfillment of the condition prescribed therein and they are also to be provided with scale pay in relation to the post held. The petitioner, since, has been serving for the last 24 years and besides, doing the same work with his colleague, who are serving on regular basis and drawing gross salary of Rs.20,000/- per month, the petitioner has been drawing only 5,350/- p.m. and he was also not being allowed the scale of pay as provided in the ROP from time to time”. 3. The petitioner has submitted one representation on 09.04.2018 and 12.04.2018 for regularization of his service, but, the same has not been considered by the authorities. 4. 3. The petitioner has submitted one representation on 09.04.2018 and 12.04.2018 for regularization of his service, but, the same has not been considered by the authorities. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition for issuing direction to the respondent authorities for regularization of his service and to grant scale of pay at par with his colleagues who are appointed on regular basis and drawing salary @ Rs.20,000/- per month. 5. The respondent authority has submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the petition. It is stated that the petitioner has not completed 30 years as per O.M., dated 17.03.2015 and he is at serial No. 3 in the seniority list in the category of post held by him. It is also stated that the Department has to regularize the service of those work-charge employee, who are senior to him and he is not entitle to the benefits of revision of pay with that of his colleagues who are appointed on regular basis as the nature of his appointment is different from that of his colleagues. It is also stated that the same scale of pay cannot be given to him and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard Ms. Esther, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 7. Ms. Esther, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already completed 24 years in service and he is entitle to be regularized and also entitled to scale of pay and the pay scale granted in terms of ROP adopted by the Government from time to time. It is further submitted that though 30 years bench mark has been fixed in the O.M., dated 17.03.2015, yet, the scheme is general in nature and does not necessarily mean that a workcharge/ temporary employee must remain as work-charge/temporary employee for 30 years before regularization of his service, if vacancies are available. Ms. Esther, further submits that the petitioner has been discharging the same work with that of his colleagues, who have been appointed on regular basis and drawing salary of about Rs.20,000/- per month. Ms. Esther, further submits that the petitioner has been discharging the same work with that of his colleagues, who have been appointed on regular basis and drawing salary of about Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the petitioner is being paid only Rs.5,350/- only and as such, right of the petitioner for ‘equal pay for equal work’ stands violated in this case and therefore, it is contended to regularize his service by allowing the petition. Ms. Esther also referred one case law: State of Punjab and Others-vs-Jagjit Singh and Others; reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 in support of her submission and also referred to an order of this Court in WP (C) 320/2021, dated 20.05.2022, wherein, direction has been issued to regularize the services of the petitioners within a period of 2 months even though they have not completed 30 years, as per the O.M., dated 17.03.2015, and another order of this Court in WP (C) 230/2019 order, dated 05.05.2022, where similar relief is granted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. N. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate vehemently opposed the submission so advanced by Ms. Esther, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner has completed only 24 years of service, he is not entitle to be regularized as per Office Memorandum, dated 17.03.2015. 9. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also carefully gone through the case law in Jagjit Singh (supra), and the order dated 20.05.2022, passed in WP(C)/320/2021, and the order dated 05.05.2022, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C)/230/2019 and I find sufficient force in the submission so advanced by Ms. Esther, learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the establishment of Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Work Division, Kohima on 15.12.1995. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.03.1996, the petitioner was granted scale of pay @Rs. 800-1475/- p.m. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.02.1997, the petitioner was transferred and attached to the Office of the S.O. (TPWD, Dimapur) and thereafter, the Government of Nagaland has issued O.M. dated 17.03.2015 for regularization of work-charged and casual employees. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted one representation for regularization of his service, but, the same has not been considered by the authority inspite of receiving the same on 09.04.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted one representation for regularization of his service, but, the same has not been considered by the authority inspite of receiving the same on 09.04.2018. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been discharging his duties sincerely and diligently for the last 24 years and he has been doing the same duty with that of his colleagues who have been regularized in service and drawing salary @Rs. 20,000/- per month, while he is being paid a sum of Rs. 5,350/- per month only. 11. The Office memorandum, dated 17.03.2015, has laid some terms and conditions for regularization of service. One of the condition is that the workcharged and the casual employee has to enjoy a scale of pay and he has to complete 30 years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed 30 years of service, though, he has been enjoying the scale of pay. Thus, there appears to be discrimination in payment of salary to the work-charged and regular employee, though they have been discharging the same function. Though, the learned Government Advocate tried to justify the same by citing the nature of engagement of the petitioner with that of his colleagues, whose service have been regularized, yet the same failed to persuade this Court. 12. While dealing with the issue of ‘equal pay for equal work’, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. reported in 1982 AIR 879, held as under:- “Equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims; so the petitioner asserts. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principle, the Constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women'. Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment.” It is further held that :- “It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Art. 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Art. 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Art. 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Art. 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean some thing to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need', it must atleast mean 'equal pay for equal work”. 13. Again in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “58… In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need', it must atleast mean 'equal pay for equal work”. 13. Again in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “58… In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation”. “60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the payscale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post”. “61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular pay- scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.” 14. Since the petitioner has been discharging the same duty with that of his colleagues, whose services have been regularized and drawing much less salary than his colleagues, his right to ‘equal pay for equal work’ as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) and Jagjit Singh (supra) appears to have been violated here in this case. The doctrine of “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” as has been held in the aforesaid cases, can be applied here in this case also as unequal scale of pay, based on no classification of irrational classification is being given to the employees for doing identical work, under the same employer. The above legal as well as factual position have not been disputed by the learned Govt. Advocate. 15. The above legal as well as factual position have not been disputed by the learned Govt. Advocate. 15. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of at this admission stage itself, by directing the State respondents to pay the petitioner the same scale of pay, which is being given to the regular employees, who have been discharging same duties with that of the petitioner, with effect from the date of his submission of representation on 09.04.2018 within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner, is accordingly, directed to obtain a certified copy of this order and to place the same before the respondent authorities. And so far, the prayer for regularization is concerned, his service shall be regularized in terms of the O.M. dated 17.03.2015. However, it is being clarified that if before completion of 30 years, by the petitioner, any post arises in the Department, then he has to be regularized without waiting for his completion of 30 years of service. In the given facts and circumstances it is provided that the parties have to bear their own cost(s).