JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -Shri Shighoto, has prayed for issuing direction to respondent authorities to consider his representation dated 10.09.2021, for regularization of his service and to grant him scale of pay, through a speaking order within the stipulated period of time. 3. The factual background leading to filing of this present petition is adumbrated herein below:- “The petitioner was appointed as fixed pay work-charge labourer in Pughoboto Sub-Division of PWD(R&B), Zunheboto, Nagaland, on temporary basis, vide Office Order, No. PTBO/WC-02/80-90/241-51, dated 28.04.1990. Since then, he has been serving in the department for the last 31 years. But, neither he has been granted scale of pay by the respondent authorities nor his service has been regularized. The respondent authorities vide Office Memorandum No. AR-3/ GEN- 67-2001(Pt), dated 22.09.2004, formulated a policy for regularization of work-charged employees on the subject, “Policy and scheme for regularization of work-charged employees”. Thereafter, the Government of Nagaland had issued another Office Memorandum, No. AR- 3/GEN-201/2009, dated 17.03.2015, on the subject, “Scheme for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees and revision of pay/wages”. But, inspite of the above mentioned Office Memorandum and inspite of rendering services for more than 31 years, the petitioner has not been considered for regularization. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made representation on 10.09.2021, praying for regularization of service and to grant him scale of pay. However, the same has not yet been disposed of by the respondent authorities.” 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition with the prayers, mentioned hereinabove. 5. The respondent authorities Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have submitted their affidavit-in-opposition denying all the averments made in the petition. It is stated that there are thousands of similarly situated work-charged employees, and if the case of the petitioner is allowed it will open a flood gate or create precedent, which will create more problems rather than solving the issue and moreover, granting of scale of pay involves huge financial implications as such in the absence of a clear policy adopted by the Government, the department is not in a position to consider the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that the representation, dated 10.09.2021, was rejected by the respondent authorities and that the petitioner knowing fully the nature of his appointment had accepted the appointment order and its responsibilities and as such, the department is not in a position to regularize the service of the petitioner. And therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. The petitioner has submitted his affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and denied the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and stated that while disposing of the representation, the State respondent did not take into consideration that similarly situated employees are enjoying higher scale of pay, while the petitioner is being paid a sum of Rs. 5205/-only. And, 2 work-charged employees namely, Shri Saluto and Shri Mughato, who were appointed along with him, were granted the scale of pay vide orders dated 04.04.2016 and 24.05.2016, respectively. However, the petitioner has been denied of the benefit, though he has been discharging identical/or similar duties and responsibilities and thereby, the respondent authorities discriminate him and violated the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 . Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 7. Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has rendered 32 years of service, despite he has neither been granted the scale of pay nor his service has been regularized in terms of the O.M dated 17.03.2015. Mr. Jamir, further submits that the petitioner is in the verge of retirement and there remains only 3 years of service and he is qualified to be regularized as per the O.M dated 17.03.2015, and referring to a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) 345/2021 (Shri Hevishe Sema Vs. State of Nagaland and Ors.), Mr. Jamir submits that in the said case the respondent authorities were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh & Others (supra) and therefore, it is contended to grant similar relief to the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Jamir submits that in the said case the respondent authorities were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh & Others (supra) and therefore, it is contended to grant similar relief to the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Government Advocate, submits that the Government has no policy to grant such scale of pay and there are thousands of similarly situated work-charged employees, and if the case of the petitioner is allowed it will open a flood gate and the Government has no resources to regularize their services, and the petition is devoid of merit and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as fixed pay work-charge labourer, in the Sub-Division of Pughoboto, PWD (R&B), Zunheboto, Nagaland on temporary basis, vide Office Order No. PTBO/WC-02/80-90/241-51, dated 28.04.1990 and since then, the petitioner has rendered 32 years in service in the said Office. It is also not in dispute that he has not been granted minimum pay scale though he has been discharging the same work like the other regular employee. 10. It also appears that the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 has laid some terms and conditions for regularization of service of work-charged employees. One of the conditions is that the work-charged and the casual employees of various Departments, who are enjoying scale pay and who have completed 30 years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015, will be regularized by conversion of their posts into regular ones personal to them and subject to fulfillment of other conditions mentioned therein, and despite his service has not been regularized. 11. From the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner, it appears that two work-charged employees namely-Shri Saluto and Shri Mughato, who were appointed along with him vide same order, were granted the scale of pay vide orders dated 04.04.2016 and 24.05.2016, respectively. But, in the case of the petitioner, such benefit was denied though he has been performing identical/or same duties and responsibilities. Thus, this is a classic case of discrimination and arbitrariness and violation of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as held in Jagjit Singh (Supra). But, in the case of the petitioner, such benefit was denied though he has been performing identical/or same duties and responsibilities. Thus, this is a classic case of discrimination and arbitrariness and violation of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as held in Jagjit Singh (Supra). It is to be noted here that the Supreme Court has held that :- “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. 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. 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. Since, the petitioner herein has been discharging the identical duties/responsibilities along with two of his colleagues, who were granted the scale of pay vide order dated 04.04.2016 and 24.05.2016, and who were appointed along with him vide same order, by rejecting his representation dated 10.09.2021, he has been denied the right to ‘equal pay for equal work’ and become the victim of discrimination and arbitrariness. I have no doubt in my mind that doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ stands violated here in this case. 13. In view of above, I find sufficient merit in this petition. I have no doubt in my mind that doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ stands violated here in this case. 13. In view of above, I find sufficient merit in this petition. And accordingly this writ petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself by directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner same scale of pay, which was granted to his two colleagues, namely-Shri Saluto and Shri Mughato, vide orders dated 04.04.2016 and 24.05.2016, respectively, from the date of submission of his representation, i.e. 10.09.2021. 14. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a week from today and on receipt of the same, 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 of this order. The respondent authorities shall also consider regularization of service the petitioner as he has already completed 32 years in service, which of course subject to fulfillment of other conditions, as provided in the O.M dated 17.03.2015. 15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.