JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. This intra-court appeal is preferred taking exception to a Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81 of 2022 which the writ appellant had preferred as the writ petitioner. In the writ petition, assail was inter-alia made to an Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 and an Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963 dated 20.04.2022. By the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024, the writ petition came to be dismissed. 2. The necessary and relevant background facts, which led the writ appellant-writ petitioner [hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’, for short] to prefer the writ petition can be exposited, briefly, at first. 3. By an Office Order bearing no. ST/SC-19/04 dated 16.03.2011 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner came to be appointed as Night Chowkidar on a fixed pay of Rs. 6,000/-per month initially for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 31.07.2011 in the establishment of the Directorate of Science & Technology, Government of Nagaland, Kohima. The Office Order stated that the fixed pay would be paid from wages pay and extension of service would be subject to availability of fund from wages. It was made specific that the appointment was purely on temporary basis subject to termination at any time without giving notice from either side. The engagement of the appellant was extended from time to time, with the last extension upto 30.12.2022 by an Office Order dated 14.04.2021, was prevalent at the time of filing the writ petition. 3.1. When a vacancy in a Grade-IV post of Chowkidar arose in the Directorate of Science & Technology due to retirement of one Sri Kegwathan Keppen, a Departmental Screening Committee was constituted for recommending the name of a candidate for appointment against the said vacancy in the post of Chowkidar [Grade-IV] in terms of an Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2016 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland. The Departmental Screening Committee after conducting screening test on 28.02.2017 in respect of four applicants, namely, [i] Smti. Nuvozolo Khamo; [ii] Sri Besuhsai Thuluo [the appellant]; [iii] Sri Besukro D. Vadeo; and [iv] Sri Imtiosen Chang; recommended the name of Smti. Nuvozolo Khamo, the seniormost contingency paid employee, for appointment to the said post of Chowkidar [Grade-IV]. Thereafter, by an Office Order dated 21.03.2017, Smti. Nuvozolo Khamo; [ii] Sri Besuhsai Thuluo [the appellant]; [iii] Sri Besukro D. Vadeo; and [iv] Sri Imtiosen Chang; recommended the name of Smti. Nuvozolo Khamo, the seniormost contingency paid employee, for appointment to the said post of Chowkidar [Grade-IV]. Thereafter, by an Office Order dated 21.03.2017, Smti. Nuvozolo Khamo was appointed/regularized in the said vacancy in the post of Chowkidar [Grade-IV] w.e.f. 01.03.2017. 3.2. The appellant on 24.03.2017 submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 4 seeking grant of scale of pay to him. As the respondent authorities did not pay any heed to the said Representation, the appellant stated to have continued his service on fixed pay contingency basis. When the appellant got the knowledge that one Smti. Thosano Ovung, Sweeper in the Directorate of Science & Technology was going to retire on 30.11.2021 on completion of 35 years of service, the appellant once again submitted a Representation on 25.08.2021 to the respondent no. 4 to consider and appoint him in the vacancy to be created due to retirement on the premise that the appellant had rendered service for more than ten years. When Smti. Thosano Ovung, Sweeper was released from service w.e.f. 30.11.2021 by a Release Order dated 29.07.2021, the appellant once against submitted a Representation on 03.02.2022 with a prayer to appoint him in the said regular vacancy of Sweeper. 3.3. On 10.03.2022, the respondent no. 4, that is, the Director, Science & Technology, Nagaland by an Office Letter of even date submitted a list of applicants [Annexure-A] to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Science & Technology Department [the respondent no. 2] for filling up a vacant post in Group-D [Multi Tasking Staff] as follows :- Annexure-A List of Applicants for filling up of Group-D [MTS] vacant post. Sl. No. Name Designation Date of Appointment Remark 1. Sri Besuhsai Thuluo Night Chowkidar 16.03.2011 Directorate/Contingency 2. Sri Vedusheyi Khamo Driver 31.10.2012 Directorate/Contingency 3. Smti. Vikheli Chishi Sweeper 08.08.2013 NASTEC/Contingency 4. Smti. Meena Gurung Sweeper 16.01.2018 Directorate/Contingency 5. Smti. Neinuo Rhi Mali 31.10.2011 Directorate/Contingency 6. Smti. Peletuonuo Alphonsa - - Fresh 7. Smti. Tuwhu - - Fresh 8. Miss Mezhuzonuo Dzuvichu - - Fresh 9. Smti. Rhuvilu Lea - - Fresh 3.4. Subsequent to submission of the list of applicants [Annexure-A] by the respondent no. 4, the Government of Nagaland in the Science & Technology Department issued the Office Letter no. Smti. Peletuonuo Alphonsa - - Fresh 7. Smti. Tuwhu - - Fresh 8. Miss Mezhuzonuo Dzuvichu - - Fresh 9. Smti. Rhuvilu Lea - - Fresh 3.4. Subsequent to submission of the list of applicants [Annexure-A] by the respondent no. 4, the Government of Nagaland in the Science & Technology Department issued the Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 conveying administrative approval for appointment of Smti. Tuwhu [the respondent no. 5] against the vacant post of Sweeper, Group-D [MTS] in the Directorate of Science & Technology. By the Office Letter dated 14.04.2022, the respondent no. 4 was directed to issue necessary formal order from his end. 3.5. Immediately after issuance of the Office Letter dated 14.04.2022, the appellant through his counsel served a Legal Notice on the respondent no. 4 on 19.04.2022 asking not to act on the Office Letter dated 14.04.2022 and to consider the appellant’s regularization/appointment against the vacancy in view of his service period of more than eleven years. The appellant also preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 69 of 2022 making an assailment to the Office Letter dated 14.04.2022. When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 69 of 2022 was moved on 22.04.2022, the Court while issuing notice of motion returnable in four weeks, observed that the approval given for appointment of the respondent no. 5 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. When during the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 69 of 2022, the respondent no. 4 issued the Office Order bearing no. ST/3-2/2021/963 dated 20.04.2020 appointing the respondent no. 5, Smti. Tuwhu in the vacant Group-D post of Multi Tasking Staff [MTS] in the Directorate of Science & Technology, the appellant withdrew the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 69 of 2022, on 28.04.2022, with a liberty to file afresh. After issuance of the Office Order bearing no. ST/3-2/2021/963 dated 20.04.2020, the respondent no. 5 submitted her joining report on 21.04.2024. 3.6. After withdrawal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 69 of 2022, the appellant once again preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81 of 2022 seeking the following reliefs : Prayer : In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordship’s may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondent authority should not be directed to quash and set aside : 1. 81 of 2022 seeking the following reliefs : Prayer : In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordship’s may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondent authority should not be directed to quash and set aside : 1. Impugned Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13, dated 14.04.2022 written by the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland Science & Technology Department, giving administrative approval for appointment of private respondent Smti. Tuwhu to Group-D [MTS] in the Directorate of Science & Technology. 2. Impugned Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963, dated 20.04.2022, passed by the Director, Science & Technology, Nagaland, Kohima appointing Smti. Tuwhu as Multi Tasking Staff [MTS] in the Directorate of Science & Technology, Nagaland, Kohima and joining report w.e.f. 21.04.2022 [FN] against the vacancy caused by Smti. Thosano Ovung’s retirement. 3. Grant scale of pay to the petitioner from initial appointment w.e.f. 01.04.2011 as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 26.10.2016, in the case of State of Punjab & others vs. Jagjit Singh & others, 2017 [1] GLT [SC] 47. 4. Direct the State respondents to consider and regularize/appoint the petitioner in Group-D Multi Tasking Staff. And on cause[s] being shown and on hearing the parties make the Rule absolute and/or pass any such other or further orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3.7. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, dismissed the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81 of 2022, preferred by the appellant as the writ petitioner, by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024. The learned Single Judge after considering the prayer of the appellant regarding grant of scale of pay from his initial appointment w.e.f. 01.04.2011 as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and other, 2017 [1] GLT [SC] 47, found the prayer untenable and negated the same. As regards the direction sought for by the appellant for consideration and his regularization/appointment in the Group-D post of Multi Tasking Staff [MTS], the learned Single Judge after having considered the said prayer in terms of Office Memoranda, dated 22.09.2024 & dated 07.12.2016, as sought for by the appellant, also declined the said prayer. In so far as the appellant’s assail made to the Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 and the Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963 dated 20.04.2022 was concerned, the learned Single Judge accepted the same. The learned Single Judge reached a finding that both the Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 and the Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963 dated 20.04.2022 were bad in law and consequently, they were set aside and quashed. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the dismissal of his writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81 of 2022 by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024, the appellant has carried the matter in appeal by this intra-court appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. S. Mere, learned State counsel for the respondent nos. 1 – 4; and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 6. Mr. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated, as urged before the learned Single Judge, that the appellant being the seniormost contingency paid employee in the Directorate of Science & Technology ought to have been appointed/regularized in the vacancy as per an Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2016. He has further contended that the appellant is entitled to be regularized in the Group-D post of Multi Tasking Staff [MTS] in terms of the policy and scheme for regularization notified by the Office Memoranda, dated 22.09.2004 & dated 17.03.2015. According to him, the learned Single Judge committed error in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for regularization. He has further contended that the case of the appellant for regularization clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. He has contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant being only a fixed pay contingency basis employee, could not be treated either as a work-charged employee or as a casual employee and, therefore, would not come under the purview of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 and the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. He has contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant being only a fixed pay contingency basis employee, could not be treated either as a work-charged employee or as a casual employee and, therefore, would not come under the purview of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 and the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. He has pointed out that when the first vacancy arose, the respondent authorities followed the criterion of seniority-cum-merit of the eligible employees in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, but when the second vacancy arose, the same procedure was not followed. Instead, the respondent no. 4 who was a fresh applicant, was appointed in the said vacancy. The denial of the prayer of the appellant for grant of scale of pay by the learned Single Judge is also bad in law. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the decision in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, [2017] 1 SCC 148. It is contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the appellant’s claim for grant of pay on the ground that the appellant had failed to substantiate that he had been discharging the same nature of work, duties and responsibilities as discharged by a similar employee getting the scale of pay. 7. Ms. Mere, learned State Counsel has supported the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by contending that the appellant has not been able to show as to how the learned Single Judge has erred in declining for grant of scale of pay and regularization. Ms. Mere has submitted that the State respondents had followed the policy laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 in law as well as in spirit. Ms. Mere has contended that the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 has formulated to maintain a ratio of 50 : 50 in that 50% of all regular vacancies arising in a year is reserved for regularization of work-charged employees and the remaining 50% is to be filled up as per the normal rules of recruitment. Moreover, the appellant could not lay a claim for regularization in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 as the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 is in respect of regularization of services of only work-charged employee. Moreover, the appellant could not lay a claim for regularization in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 as the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 is in respect of regularization of services of only work-charged employee. The appellant’s claim qua the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 is also not tenable because the scheme framed and notified by the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 is for regularization and absorption of only work-charged and casual employees who have completed thirty years of service and granted scale of pay whereas the appellant is only a fixed pay contingency employee. 8. Mr. Pongener, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the learned Single Judge while setting aside the appointment of the respondent no. 5, has rightly directed the State respondents to fill up the vacancy in the Group-D post of Multi Tasking Staff [MTS] after publication of an advertisement to invite applications from all eligible candidates including the appellant and the respondent no. 5, and thereafter, to make the appointment in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has further allowed the respondent no. 5 to continue in the post till the appointment is made to fill up the vacancy by regular selection process. He has further submitted that since no appointment has been made to fill up the said vacancy till date, the respondent no. 5 be allowed to continue in the said post till the vacancy is filled up in the manner directed by the learned Single Judge. 9. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through pleadings before the learned Single Judge. 10. In order to press home his claim for regularization, the appellant has referred to two Office Memoranda viz. [i] Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004; and [ii] Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. Both the Office Memoranda were issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland. The first Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 is on the subject : ‘Policy and Scheme for Regularization of Service of Work-Charged Employees’, while the later Office Memorandum is on the subject : ‘Scheme for Regularization and Absorption of Work-Charged and Casual Employees and Revision of Pay/Wages’. 10.1. The first Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 is on the subject : ‘Policy and Scheme for Regularization of Service of Work-Charged Employees’, while the later Office Memorandum is on the subject : ‘Scheme for Regularization and Absorption of Work-Charged and Casual Employees and Revision of Pay/Wages’. 10.1. The Policy and Scheme for regularization of service of work-charged employees in the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 was framed as at that point of time there was no transparent and rational policy and criteria for regularization of service of work-charged employees. As per the Policy and Scheme laid down therein, regularization of work-charged employees serving under various Departments of the State Government is to be done against available regular vacancies. As per Clause [iii] of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, 50% of all regular vacancies of similar nature arising in a year are reserved for regularization of work-charged employees and the remaining 50% are to be filled up as per the normal rules of recruitment. It was laid down in Clause [iv] therein that work-charged employees would have the right to be considered first for regularization against 50% of all future vacancies in the Department provided they possess the requisite qualification and the basis of consideration for regularization is seniority-cum-merit, meaning thereby, the seniormost work-charged employee in the relevant category would be regularized, subject to his/her fitness for the vacant post. In Clause [x], it was mentioned that all new work-charged appointments should be banned and any new appointment should be treated as illegal. 10.2. By the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, another scheme for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees and revision of their pay and wages was notified. As per Clause 1[i] thereof, all existing work-charged and casual employees of various Departments who are enjoying scale pay and who have completed 30 [thirty] years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015 are to be regularized by conversion of their post into regular ones personal to them and subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein. It is further provided in Clause 1[ii] that in respect of those work-charged and casual employees in scale pay and who have completed or would complete 30 [thirty] years of continuous service after 01.01.2015, their cases for regularization would be taken up subsequently in two batches as on 1st July and 1st January every year, with the same procedures, terms and conditions. It has also been laid down in Clause 1[iii] to the effect that the then existing scheme for regularization of work-charged employees has been modified by enhancing the quota for work-charged employees from 50% to 67% for the next 5 [five] years effecting from 01.01.2015 and the then existing scheme is also made applicable for the casual employees appointed on full-time basis. 10.3. The Legislative Assembly of Nagaland has enacted an act, ‘the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Act, 2001’ [‘the Act, 2001’, for short] to regulate appointment and conditions of service of persons appointed as work-charged employees and casual employees. The said Act, 2001 received the assent of the Governor of Nagaland on 26.03.2001 and was published in the Official Gazette on 11.04.2001. The expressions, ‘work-charged employee’ and ‘casual employee’ are found defined in the Act, 2001. As per Section 2[c] of the Act, 2001, ‘casual employee’ means an employee engaged without sanctioned post. As per Section 2[d], a ‘work-charged employee’ means an employee engaged without sanctioned post under work-charged establishment. ‘Workcharged establishment’, as defined in Section 2[e], means and includes such establishments in any department under which a person is employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from the general supervision, of a specific work or of sub-works of a specific project or upon the subordinate supervision of departmental labour, stores and machinery in connection with such works or sub-works. Under Section 3, a Work-Charged and Casual Employees Commission [‘the Commission’, for short] is to be constituted by the State Government to exercise the powers and to perform the functions conferred to it under the Act. Section 4 has delineated the function of the Commission. The Commission, subject to the general direction of the State Government, performs inter-alia the functions of recommending [i] the norms and the number of work-charged employees and casual employees for any department with due regard to work load, budgetary resources and such other factors as my be considered relevant; and [ii] wage fixation and other conditions of service. Chapter – III of the Act, 2001 contains the provision for appointment and discharge of work-charged employees. It has been prescribed in Section 8 to the effect that no appointment of work-charged employees shall be made in any department in excess of the number prescribed by the State Government subject to the conditions therein. Chapter – III of the Act, 2001 contains the provision for appointment and discharge of work-charged employees. It has been prescribed in Section 8 to the effect that no appointment of work-charged employees shall be made in any department in excess of the number prescribed by the State Government subject to the conditions therein. Similarly, Chapter – IV contains the provisions for appointment and discharge of casual employees. Both the work-charged employees and the casual employees are entitled to casual leave, holidays, working hours as may be prescribed. It has been provided in Section 12 – ‘Scheme for Absorption of Service’ that the State Government may draw up a scheme for absorption of service of work-charged employees into regular Government service. As per Section 3, the State Government may, with due regard to the identification of post and jobs, make an appropriate order to any department for reserving the vacancies as may be specified for implementing the Scheme formulated under Section 12. 10.4. In State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman, [1997] 2 SCC 517, the distinction between the work-charged establishment and the regular establishment have been brought out in the following manner : 6. A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this Court in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India [ (1979) 4 SCC 440 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 36] broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to “works”. The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate subhead of the estimated cost of the works. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. Thus a work-charged establishment is materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment. * ***** 8. A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a “work” and availability of funds for executing it. Thus a work-charged establishment is materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment. * ***** 8. A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a “work” and availability of funds for executing it. So far as employees engaged in work-charged establishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the employees of the regular establishment. A regular establishment and a work-charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the persons employed on those establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes. For that reason, if a separate set of rules are framed for the persons engaged in the work-charged establishment and the general rules applicable to persons working on the regular establishment are not made applicable to them, it cannot be said that they are treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is well settled that the Government has the power to frame different rules for different classes of employees. …….. 10.5. In Punjab State Electricity Board and others vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others, [2009] 3 SCC 661, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed regarding a work-charged establishment in the following manner : 9. ……. Generally speaking, a work-charged establishment is an establishment of which the expenses are chargeable to works. The pay and allowances of the employees who are engaged on a work-charged establishment are usually shown under a specified sub-head of the estimated cost of works. The work-charged employees are engaged for execution of a specified work or project and their engagement comes to an end on completion of the work or project. The source and mode of engagement/recruitment of work-charged employees, their pay and conditions of employment are altogether different from the persons appointed in the regular establishment against sanctioned posts after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Act or rules and their duties and responsibilities are also substantially different than those of regular employees. 10.6. It has been further observed in Punjab State Electricity Board [supra] that the work-charged employees cannot be treated on a par with the employees of regular establishment. 10.6. It has been further observed in Punjab State Electricity Board [supra] that the work-charged employees cannot be treated on a par with the employees of regular establishment. The work-charged employees can neither claim regularization of service as of right nor can they claim pay scales and other financial benefits on a par with regular employees. If the service of a work-charged employee is regularized under any statute or a scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment from the date of regularization. An work-charged employee’s service in the work-charged establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular establishment unless a specific provision to that effect is made either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularization. 10.7. It is the case of the appellant himself that his continuance in service since the Office Order dated 16.03.2011 is as a fixed pay contingency employee. The said fact is also evident inter-alia from [i] the Office Order bearing no. S&T-51/2016/429-35 dated 14.04.2021; [ii] Annexure-A to the Letter dated 10.03.2022; and [iii] the Office Order bearing no. S&T-51/2016/1739-44 dated 14.02.2024, all issued under the hand of the respondent no. 4, that is, the Director of Science & Technology, Nagaland. By the Office Order bearing no. S&T-51/2016/429-35 dated 14.04.2021, the service of the appellant as a contingency employee [Night Chowkidar] at the rate of wages, Rs. 5,280/-was extended for the period from 31.12.2021 to 30.12.2022. When the case of the petitioner was forwarded for consideration for the Group-D vacant post of Multi Tasking Staff [MTS] by the respondent no. 4 to the Government vide his Letter dated 10.03.2022 enclosing the Annexure-A thereto, the appellant was identified as a contingency employee [Night Chowkidar] since 16.03.2011. By the Office Order bearing no. S&T-51/2016/1739-44 dated 14.02.2024, the service of the appellant as a contingency employee [Night Chowkidar] at the rate of wages, Rs. 5,280/-was extended for the period from 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024. That apart, the appellant in all his correspondences with the respondent authorities had identified himself as a fixed pay casual employee. 10.8. By the Office Order bearing no. S&T-51/2016/1739-44 dated 14.02.2024, the service of the appellant as a contingency employee [Night Chowkidar] at the rate of wages, Rs. 5,280/-was extended for the period from 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024. That apart, the appellant in all his correspondences with the respondent authorities had identified himself as a fixed pay casual employee. 10.8. As the appellant since his date of appointment on 16.03.2011 till consideration of the writ petition was found to be only a fixed pay contingency employee, the learned Single Judge after having considered the appellant’s claim vis-à-vis the Office Memoranda, dated 22.09.2004 & dated 17.03.2015, found that the said two Office Memoranda cannot be pressed into service by the appellant while seeking his appointment/regularization. 10.9. On a close look at both the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 and the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, we find that while the Scheme for regularization of service of the work-charged employees by the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 was adopted by the State Government on the recommendation of a Committee set up for regularization of work-charged employees in the State, the Scheme for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees by the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 was framed by the State Government on due consideration of a Report of the Work-Charged and Casual Employees Commission. The two categories of employees, ‘work-charged employee’ and ‘casual employee’ are statutorily recognized in the Act, 2001 and the State Government has framed the schemes under the afore-mentioned two Office Memoranda specifically for these two categories of employees, that is, ‘work-charged employee’ and ‘casual employee’. In such view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to equate a ‘fixed pay contingency employee’ with a either a ‘work-charged employee’ or a ‘casual employee’. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge with regard to the appellant, who is a fixed pay contingency employee. 10.10. As by the two Office Memoranda whereby the policy and scheme for regularization and absorption are made limited to only the work-charged employees and the casual employees appointed on full-time basis, the appellant who is only a fixed pay contingency employee cannot relate his claim for regularization to the said Office Memoranda. 10.10. As by the two Office Memoranda whereby the policy and scheme for regularization and absorption are made limited to only the work-charged employees and the casual employees appointed on full-time basis, the appellant who is only a fixed pay contingency employee cannot relate his claim for regularization to the said Office Memoranda. Moreover, the appellant has not completed a period of 30 [thirty] years of service, as on date, to come under the purview of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. As admittedly, the appellant is not a work-charged employee, his case for regularization as per the policy notified by the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 is also not tenable. 10.11. It has been categorically held in Union of India and others vs. Ilmo Devi and others, [2021] 20 SCC 290, the High Court cannot, in exercise of the power under Article 226, issue a mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the posts. The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularisation policy. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts. It has been held as a settled preposition of law that regularisation can be only as per the regularisation policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularisation as a matter of right dehors the regularisation policy. 10.12. In the light of the discussion made above and considering the fact that the appellant was serving as a fixed pay contingency employee and not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the extant schemes and policies of regularization framed by the State Government, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in so far as regards the claim of the appellant for his claim for regularization/appointment in the Group-D post of Multi Tasking Staff [MTS] is concerned and we concur with such view. 11. 11. With regard to the claim of the appellant for grant of scale of pay vis-à-vis his contention regarding the observation made by the learned Single Judge, we may advert to the observations made in the decision in SAIL vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, [2011] 11 SCC 122, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, : 31. The onus to establish the discrimination by the employer lies on the person claiming the parity of pay. The Expert Committee has to decide such issues, as the fixation of pay scales, etc. falls within the exclusive domain of the executive. So long as the value judgment of those who are responsible for administration i.e. service conditions, etc. is found to be bona fide, reasonable, and on intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus of objective of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is not prohibited in law to have two grades of posts in the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature of a post may not be the sole determinative factor. The courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine whether the decision of the State authorities is rational and just or prejudicial to a particular set of employees. The court has to keep in mind that a mere difference in service conditions does not amount to discrimination. Unless there is complete and wholesale/wholesome identity between the two posts they should not be treated as equivalent and the court should avoid applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. 12. The State of Punjab approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, [2017] 1 SCC 148, with the issue whether temporarily engaged employees [daily-waged employee, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like] are entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale, along with dearness allowance [as revised from time to time] on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned post. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the issue which arose for consideration, in the set of appeals before it, would necessitate a bird’s-eye on the legal position about the underlying ingredients, which governed the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the issue which arose for consideration, in the set of appeals before it, would necessitate a bird’s-eye on the legal position about the underlying ingredients, which governed the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It was found necessary to resolve the controversy to examine the manner in which that Court had earlier extended the benefit of ‘minimum of the regular pay scale’. 12.1. After analyzing a large nos. of precedents to examine the legal parameters to bringing the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, the Hon’ble Court in Jagjit Singh [supra], has summarized its finding in Paragraph 60 and Paragraph 61 in the following manner : 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 [dailywage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like], the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the employees concerned [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’ summarised by us in para 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 temporary employees concerned 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. 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 summarised by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a 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 temporary employees concerned, 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. 12.2. In Jagjit Singh [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court is found to have examined the claim of ‘equal pay for equal work’ of the employees before it and while examining the issue, it has delineated the parameters laid down in the earlier decisions on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ in Paragraph 42 of the decision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh [supra], after reaching the finding that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to the temporary employees in the bunch of appeals before it, vesting in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged Government employees holding the same post, held that all the temporary employees concerned in the bunch of cases could 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. 13. After surveying a large nos. 13. After surveying a large nos. of decision on the principle, ‘equal pay for equal work’ and also the decision in Jagjit Singh [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, [2019] 18 SCC 301, has observed in the following manner : 96. Analysis of the decisions referred to above shows that this Court has accepted the following limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ : 96.1. The doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not an abstract doctrine. 96.2. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has no mechanical application in every case. 96.3. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. 96.4. The application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. 96.5. Thus, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. 96.6. Granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. 96.7. Equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. 96.8. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences. 96.9. Before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment. 96.10. In a given case, mode of selection may be considered as one of the factors which may make a difference. 13.1. From the afore-mentioned decisions, the propositions that have emerged are that the ordinarily, the applicability of the principle, ‘equal pay for equal work’ must be left to be evaluation and determined by an expert body and these are matters where a Court in its writ jurisdiction should not interfere. Granting of pay scale is held to be a purely executive function and a writ court should refrain from interfering with a matter regarding grant of scale of pay to an employee or a set of employees. Granting of pay scale is held to be a purely executive function and a writ court should refrain from interfering with a matter regarding grant of scale of pay to an employee or a set of employees. It is too settled that equation of post is to be left to an expert body and similarly, fixation of salary or scale of pay is too complex a matter to be adjudicated by a writ court. The Court should refrain from these issues as it may have cascading effect creating many consequences for the Government and the employers. 13.2. We have gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and thereafter, find that the learned Single Judge is right in holding that the appellant has not brought sufficient and convincing materials on record to reach any finding that the appellant discharges the same nature of works, duties and responsibilities as discharged by a regular employee. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that in the absence of sufficient and convincing materials, the appellant’s claim for scale of pay cannot be considered. There is also no view from the State respondents regarding similarities in duties and responsibilities discharged by a fixed pay contingency employee and a regular employee. In view of the above fact situation, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant has failed to make out a case for granting of scale of pay to him as granted to a regular employee. 14. The learned Single Judge tested the legality and the validity of the Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 and the Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963 dated 20.04.2022 from the standpoint of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge had referred to the decisions in State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mohanty, [2011] 3 SCC 436; and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, [2006] 4 SCC 1. In Mamata Mohanty [supra], it has been held that no person can be appointed even on temporary or ad-hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. In Mamata Mohanty [supra], it has been held that no person can be appointed even on temporary or ad-hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. It has been authoritatively held in Umadevi [supra] that the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and a court is disabled from passing an order upholding violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. It has been held therein that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons the same would not confer any right on the appointee. 14.1. Having found that the appointment of the respondent no. 5 was not preceded by any public advertisement and any kind of selection process and in appointing the respondent no. 5, the State respondent authorities had adopted a pick and choose method, the learned Single Judge set aside and quashed the Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 and the Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963 dated 20.04.2022. After setting aside and quashing the Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000[Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 and the Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963 dated 20.04.2022, the learned Single has directed the said respondents to advertise the post of Multi Tasking Staff [MTS]/Sweeper to which the respondent no. 5 was appointed, by inviting applications from all eligible candidates including the appellant and the respondent no. 5, and thereafter, to make an appointment in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has further observed that till the post is advertised and the appointment is made, the respondent no. 5 shall be allowed to continue in the post. 15. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the appellant has preferred the interlocutory application, I.A.[Civil] no. 178 of 2024 seeking stay of an Advertisement no. S&T-138/2021, published in the English daily newspaper, ‘Nagaland Post’ in its issue dated 28.09.2024 and a copy of the said Advertisement has been annexed as Annexure-B to the interlocutory application. The Advertisement no. S&T-138/2021 has been published pursuant to the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2024. By the Advertisement no. S&T-138/2021, applications have been invited to fill up the vacancy in the post of MTS [Sweeper] in the Directorate of Science & Technology, Nagaland. The Advertisement no. S&T-138/2021 has been published pursuant to the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2024. By the Advertisement no. S&T-138/2021, applications have been invited to fill up the vacancy in the post of MTS [Sweeper] in the Directorate of Science & Technology, Nagaland. The appellant’s contention is that by prescribing educational qualification of Class-VIII pass and age criteria of 18-35 years in the Advertisement, the said respondents have excluded the appellant from consideration as the appellant’s qualification is only Class-IV pass and he is aged about 39 years. Prescription of eligibility criteria is in the exclusive domain of the employer/State Government. The conditions of eligibility for filling up the vacancy in the post of MTS [Sweeper] was not the subject-matter of the writ petition and hence, it cannot be a subject-matter of this intra-court appeal. The appellant is at liberty to assail such an advertisement in an independent manner. Thus, we do not find any merit in the interlocutory application. Consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In view of the discussions and observations made, the findings reached at and for the reasons assigned above, we do not find merit in the instant intra-court appeal. Therefore, the intra-court appeal and the interlocutory application, I.A.[Civil] no. 20/2024 are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. 17. It is settled that once a person’s appointment is held to be illegal, he forfeits all rights to continue in appointment. In so far as the appointment of the respondent no. 5 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has already held in the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024 that the appointment of the respondent no. 5 is illegal and set aside and quashed the appointment. On a pointed query to Ms. Mere, learned State Counsel, it has been submitted that the process of filling up the vacancy in the post of MTS [Sweeper], advertised by Advertisement no. S&T-138/2021, is not being pursued, as on date, in view of an order passed in I.A.[Civil] no. 20/2024 on 06.11.2024. On further query, Ms. Mere has submitted that in the event the authorities are allowed to proceed with the recruitment process to fill up the vacancy in the post of MTS [Sweeper], the authorities would be able to complete the process by 31.01.2025. Balancing the equities, we recall the order of status quo passed on 06.11.2024 in I.A.[Civil] no. On further query, Ms. Mere has submitted that in the event the authorities are allowed to proceed with the recruitment process to fill up the vacancy in the post of MTS [Sweeper], the authorities would be able to complete the process by 31.01.2025. Balancing the equities, we recall the order of status quo passed on 06.11.2024 in I.A.[Civil] no. 20/2024 by clarifying that the State respondents authorities shall proceed with the recruitment process initiated by the Advertisement no. S&T-138/2021 in an expeditious manner so as to complete it by 31.01.2025 and till that time, the respondent no. 5 is to be allowed to continue. It is further ordered that by no means, the respondent no. 5 should be allowed to continue for any period beyond 31.01.2025.