JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction upon the Respondents for regularizing the services of the husband of the Petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 so that the Petitioner can receive the pensionery benefits as well as family pension. 3. From the materials on record, it is seen that vide an order dated 10.08.1987, the husband of the Petitioner namely Mr. Tsathrongse Sangtam was appointed as work-charged handyman under the establishment of the Executive Engineer (PWD), Kiphire in the scale of pay. Thereupon, the husband of the Petitioner was promoted from handyman to driver vide an office order dated 16.09.1995 in the scale of pay. The husband of the Petitioner thereupon rendered service for 35 years without any interruption and retired on 31.07.2022. Unfortunately, the husband of the Petitioner expired on 03.09.2022. 4. It is further relevant to take note of that the Government of Nagaland had issued an Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 which is a scheme for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees and revision of pay/wages. The husband of the Petitioner in view of the said Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 was expecting that in view of the stipulations contained therein, the case of the husband of the Petitioner would be considered as per Clause 1(ii) without any representation inasmuch as the husband of the Petitioner had completed 30 years of service in the scale of pay on 10.08.2017. However, the case of the husband of the Petitioner was not considered in terms with the mandate of Clause 1(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 till his retirement. Under such circumstances, the husband of the Petitioner had submitted a representation on 12.08.2022 to the Respondent No. 3 so that after his retirement, the husband of the Petitioner would receive the pensionary benefits. The said representation remained unconsidered and the husband of the Petitioner unfortunately as stated above expired on 03.09.2022. Upon the death of the husband of the Petitioner, the Petitioner also submitted a representation on 18.04.2023 which was not considered and as such, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 5. The said representation remained unconsidered and the husband of the Petitioner unfortunately as stated above expired on 03.09.2022. Upon the death of the husband of the Petitioner, the Petitioner also submitted a representation on 18.04.2023 which was not considered and as such, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 5. The record reveals that pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 20.07.2023, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 wherein the statements made in the writ petition to the effect that the Petitioner had rendered 35 years of service on the scale of pay as work-charged handyman and later on work-charged Driver was not denied. However, the Respondent Authorities have rejected the case of the Petitioner on the ground of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Case of State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi dated 11.07.2022 wherein posthumous regularization of service of the deceased official was denied. It is therefore the stand of the Respondent Authorities that as the husband of the Petitioner had already expired, the question of granting regularization to the service of the husband of the Petitioner did not arise. 6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 7. For deciding the question which has arisen for consideration before this Court, this Court finds it relevant first to deal with the powers conferred upon this Court to direct regularization vis-à-vis the power to issue directions when the State formulate policy for regularization. It is relevant to take note of that in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 , two issues primarily fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. First, the right of the employees seeking regularization on account of long and continuous work and secondly, the correctness of the directions issued by the High Courts for regularization of employees under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of UmaDevi (supra) dealt firstly with the right claimed by the temporary employees to be regularized in service on the basis of long continuous, legitimate expectation, employment under the State and directive principles. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of UmaDevi (supra) dealt firstly with the right claimed by the temporary employees to be regularized in service on the basis of long continuous, legitimate expectation, employment under the State and directive principles. In addition to that, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court also answered as to whether the Court would be justified in issuing directions for regularization based on such features such as equality and long spell of service. On both these grounds, the Constitution Bench held against the temporary employees. 8. Be that as it may, it is also pertinent to observe that in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others Vs. District Bar Association, Bandipora reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410 it was held at Paragraph No.11 that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UmaDevi(supra) is not an authority for the proposition that the executive or the legislature cannot frame a scheme for regularization. It was also observed that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra)did not denude the State or its instrumentalities from framing a scheme for regularization. It is therefore seen that the executive as well as the legislature has the power to formulate a scheme for regularization with an aim at validating certain irregular appointment which may have come to be made in genuine and legitimate administrative exigencies. 9. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, which is a scheme so framed for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees and revision of pay/wages. Clause 1(i)(a), 1(ii) and 1(iii) being relevant are reproduced herein under: “1. Regularisation in service: (i) All existing work-charged and casual employees of various Departments who are enjoying scale of pay and who have completed 30 (thirty) 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 conditions as indicated below. (a) ……. Regularisation in service: (i) All existing work-charged and casual employees of various Departments who are enjoying scale of pay and who have completed 30 (thirty) 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 conditions as indicated below. (a) ……. (h) (ii) In respect of those work-charged and casual employees in scale pay and who have completed or will complete 30 (thirty) years of continuous service after 01.01.2015, their cases for regularization will be taken up subsequently in two batches as on 1st July and 1st January every year. The procedures and terms and conditions will be the same as laid down in this O.M. (iii) The existing scheme for regularization of work-charged employees against normal vacancy is being modified and the quota for workcharged employees stands enhanced from 50% to 67% for the next 5 (five) years effective from 01.01.2015. This existing scheme will also be applicable for the casual employees appointed on full time basis.” 10. A perusal of the Office Memorandum and more particularly the Clauses reproduced herein above would show that the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 is in respect to all work-charged and casual employees of various Departments who enjoyed scale of pay and who had completed 30 (thirty) years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015. It is also seen that the manner in which the regularization is required to be carried out i.e. by conversion of the posts held by the employees and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as mentioned in Sub-Clauses (a) to (h) of Clause 1(i). It is also very clear from Clause 1(i) that all existing work-charged and casual employees of various Departments who are enjoying scale pay and who had completed 30 years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015 would be regularized by conversion of their posts into regular ones. It is also seen that those employees who have not completed 30 (thirty) years of continuous service as on 01.01.2015, but would complete after 01.01.2015, their case for regularization would be taken up in similar manner as stipulated in Clause 1(i) in two batches as on 1st of July and 1st of January every year. 11. It is also seen that those employees who have not completed 30 (thirty) years of continuous service as on 01.01.2015, but would complete after 01.01.2015, their case for regularization would be taken up in similar manner as stipulated in Clause 1(i) in two batches as on 1st of July and 1st of January every year. 11. Taking into account the said Officer Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, it is clear that the Petitioner’s husband having completed 30 years of service on 10.08.2017 and being on the scale of pay, the services of the husband of the Petitioner ought to have been taken up for regularization in the month of January, 2018. However, the husband of the Petitioner’s case was not taken up in spite of the clear and categorical policy of the State of Nagaland in the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. It is further seen that not only in the month of January, 2018, the case of the husband of the Petitioner was not taken into consideration till the date of retirement of the husband of the Petitioner on completion of 35 years on 31.07.2022. In the opinion of this Court, the non-consideration in view of the clear and categorical mandate of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 more particularly, in Clause 1(ii) amounts to a violation of not only the policy of the State of Nagaland but also the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it offends the equality clause. 12. It is further seen that the husband of the Petitioner after retirement submitted a representation so that the husband of the Petitioner could receive some pensionary benefits if his services was regularized. However, unfortunately the husband of the Petitioner expired on 03.09.2022. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner had submitted the representation which remained unconsidered. 13. Let this Court now take the stand of the Respondent State. It is seen that the stand which has been taken is on the basis of the judgment in the case of Nishevi Achumi(supra). In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case taking into account that the employee concerned in the case of Nishevi Achumi (supra) died in harness on 28.08.2005 as a work-charged employee, thereupon nothing was done and only in the year 2017, an application was filed seeking regularization. In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case taking into account that the employee concerned in the case of Nishevi Achumi (supra) died in harness on 28.08.2005 as a work-charged employee, thereupon nothing was done and only in the year 2017, an application was filed seeking regularization. It is very pertinent to mention at that relevant point of time when the employee had died in harness in the case of Nishevi Achumi (supra), there was no policy similar to the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 which mandated, obligated and vested a duty upon the State Respondents to take up the cases for regularization if an employee satisfied ambit of Clause 1(i) (a to h) and had completed 30 years of service in the scale of pay. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court the judgment in the case of Nishevi Achumi (supra) could not have been applied by the Respondents to deny the claim of the Petitioner. 14. In view of the above determination, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are directed to take effective steps for regularizing the service of the husband of the Petitioner as on the date he was entitled to be considered for regularization in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. (ii) The said exercise be completed within 4 (four) months from the date of service of a certified copy of the instant order upon the Respondent No. 3. (iii) Upon such regularization being made in the case of the husband of the Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are further directed to take appropriate steps for granting the pensionary benefits as well as the family pension to the Petitioner as per the mandate of law. The said exercise be completed within 4 (four) months from the date of regularization of the services of the husband of the Petitioner.