JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. It is submitted at the Bar that in these 5 writ petitions, being 1. WP(C)344/2021, 2. WP(C)345/2021, 3. WP(C)346/2021, 4. WP(C)347/2021, 5. WP(C)348/2021, a common question of law is involved and as such, all of them can be heard together and disposed of by a common judgment and order. Accordingly, as agreed by the parties, it is proposed to dispose of these five writ petition by a common judgment and order. 3. The factual background leading to filing of these five writ petitions is adumbrated herein below :- “The respondent authorities have appointed the 5 petitioners, as W/C Labourer, under the establishment of Executive Engineer (PWD), Kiphire Division, Nagaland and posted in Kiphire Divisions @ of Rs. 450/- and 750/- P.M., respectively. Their names and date of appointment and the years of service, they have put in serving the department, is reflected in the below noted chart:- Sl. No. Case No. Name of Petitioners Date of Appointment. Years of service. 1. WP(c)344/2021 Shri Muramong 17.02.1994 27 years 2. WP(C)345/2021 Shri Atsamong 17.02.1994 27 years 3. WP(C)346/2021 Shri B. Tsalise 21.07.1995 26 years 4. WP(C)347/2021 Shri Joseph 21.10.1996 25 years 5. WP(C)348/2021 Shri Simphuikiu 05.10.1999 22 years Though they have been serving in the department for a considerable period, yet, neither their services have neither been regularized nor scale of pay was granted to them. They have filed representations to the Engineer-In-Chief, NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima for granting minimum scale of pay on 20.10.2021. But, the respondent authorities have not disposed of the same and no action has been initiated upon the same. Being aggrieved, the 5 petitioners approached this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant minimum pay scale as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 26.10.2016, in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , and to issue direction to the respondent authorities to pass similar order dated 23.01.2020, granting scale of pay to similarly situated employees. 4. Though, time was granted to the respondent authorities yet, no affidavit has been submitted by the respondent authorities. 5. Mr. Vs Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , and to issue direction to the respondent authorities to pass similar order dated 23.01.2020, granting scale of pay to similarly situated employees. 4. Though, time was granted to the respondent authorities yet, no affidavit has been submitted by the respondent authorities. 5. Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that all the five petitioners have served in the department for 27, 27, 26, 25 & 22 years respectively. But, neither they have been granted the scale of pay nor their services have been regularized by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that after putting a considerable period of service to the department, they will be retiring from their post without the minimum scale of pay and that they have been discharging same duties like the regular employees but, they have not been provided with the minimum scale of pay, though the same is provided in the ROP 2017. 6. Referring to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra), Mr. Supongwati, submits that as enunciated in the said case the petitioners are entitled to equal pay like the regular employees as they have been discharging the same duties. 6.1. Mr. Supongwati Walling further submits that in WP(C)79(K)/2018, (Shri Yimyumetsu Vs State of Nagaland & 4 Ors.), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide dated 19.07.2018, has directed to pay minimum scale of pay and as per the Court’s direction the petitioners have been granted scale of pay in the pay band of Rs. 4400-172000/-with grade pay of Rs. 1300/-in level 1 @ Rs. 15,000/-by Office order dated 03.10.2018 and the present petitioners are also similarly situated employees and they are also entitled to get equal treatment. Mr. Supongwati Walling further submits that similar relief was also granted by another co-ordinate Bench of this court to the petitioners of writ petition No. WP(C)79(K)/2018, WP(C)165(K)/2018, WP(C)166(K)/2018, WP(C)167 (K)/2018, WP(C)168(K)/2018, vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2018. Therefore, it is contended to direct the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No. 4, to grant minimum scale of pay, similar to the Office Order dated 03.10.2018, granting scale of pay to W/C (fixed) employees, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-5, and also vide Office Order dated 23.01.2020. 7. Per contra, Mr. Therefore, it is contended to direct the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No. 4, to grant minimum scale of pay, similar to the Office Order dated 03.10.2018, granting scale of pay to W/C (fixed) employees, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-5, and also vide Office Order dated 23.01.2020. 7. Per contra, Mr. Moa Imchen, the learned Government Advocate submits that the Government has no policy to grant such scale of pay and as such, however, if present petitioners are granted similar relief like the petitioner of WP(C)79(K)/2018,WP(C)165(K)/2018,WP(C)166(K)/2018,WP(C)167 (K)/2018, WP(C)168(K)/2018, the respondent authorities will have no objection. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case laws referred by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. It is not in the dispute that the petitioners have been serving in the department for a considerable period and some of them put their service for more than 27 years. But, they have not been granted the minimum scale of pay. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been discharging the same duty like the regular employees and further, it appears that all the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondent No. 4, the Engineer-In-Chief, NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima. But, the respondent No.4 had not taken any step upon the same. 10. It is to be noted here that in WP(C)79(K)/2018, Shri Yimyumetsu Vs. State of Nagaland & 4 Ors., a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order 19.07.2018, has directed the respondent authorities to pay minimum scale of pay to the petitioner and pursuant to said order dated 19.07.2018, he has been granted scale of pay vide Officer Order dated 03.10.2018. It also appears that another co-ordinate Bench of this court, vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2018, in writ petitions No. (i) WP(C)165(K)/2018, (ii) WP(C)166(K)/2018, (ii) WP(C)167(K)/2018, and in (iii) WP(C)168(K)/2018, relying upon the ratios laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618 , and also in the case of Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1987 4 SCC 634 , and in Jagjit Singh (Supra), directed to the respondent authorities specially, the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioners’ representation for granting minimum pay scale. Union of India, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618 , and also in the case of Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1987 4 SCC 634 , and in Jagjit Singh (Supra), directed to the respondent authorities specially, the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioners’ representation for granting minimum pay scale. And thereafter, the respondent authority, vide Office Order dated 23.01.2020, had granted minimum pay scale to the petitioners of said writ petitions. 11. I have carefully gone through the case laws referred by Mr. Supongwati Walling, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and I find that the ratio laid down therein strengthen his submission. In the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra), the 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 that 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 situates, 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. 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. 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 pay scale 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”. 12. “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”. 12. In view of above factual as well as legal position, and also as agreed by the parties, these writ petitions stands disposed of at this admission stage itself, with a direction to the respondent authorities to take a decision upon the representation filed by the petitioners for granting minimum pay scale in the similar line with that of the petitioners of WP(C)79(K)/2018; WP(C)165(K)/2018; WP(C)166(K)/ 2018; WP(C)167(K)/2018; WP(C)168(K)/2018; and Office Order dated 03.10.2018 and Office Order dated 23.01.2020, passed by the respondent No.4, i.e. the Engineer-In-Chief, Nagaland, Kohima. The petitioners shall obtain the certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No.4 within a week from today and on receipt of the certified copy, the respondent authorities shall carry out the above exercise within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 13. The parties have to bear their own costs.