JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Toshi. O. Longkumer, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ms. Sungjemnungla @ Anungla, who is aggrieved due to non-consideration of her representation to the respondents for posthumous regularization of the service of her late husband, namely, Toshimeren. She has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents for posthumous regularization of the service of late Toshimeren and to provide consequential pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, late Toshimeren was appointed as a work-charged handyman under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Changtongya Electrical Division, Changtongya with a pay-scale of Rs.190-2-226-250/- plus all other allowances admissible under rules from time to time. The petitioner husband died in harness, on 22.08.2011, while serving as work-charged handyman. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during his lifetime, the husband of the petitioner had approached the Department for regularization of his service on several occasions. Though, the services of other work-charged employees situated similar to that of the husband of the petitioner were regularized, however, the service of the husband of the petitioner was never regularized. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner died in harness after rendering 28 years of service as work-charged handyman. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the husband of the petitioner was promoted as work-charged driver on 23.01.2004, however, he was again demoted to the post of work-charged handyman on 01.03.2007. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of her husband, the petitioner had filed a representation, on 27.09.2011 before the respondent No.4 praying for posthumous upgradation of the husband of the petitioner to the post of work-charged driver so that the petitioner may avail pensionary benefits of her deceased husband. However, the said representation was never considered and the petitioner was given assurance that her matter is under consideration. 7. Thereafter, on 23.06.2022, the petitioner had filed another representation praying for posthumous regularization of the service of her late husband Toshimeren. However, the said representation was never considered and the petitioner was given assurance that her matter is under consideration. 7. Thereafter, on 23.06.2022, the petitioner had filed another representation praying for posthumous regularization of the service of her late husband Toshimeren. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, the Engineer-in- Chief, Department of Power, Nagaland (respondent No.3) wrote a letter bearing No.ENCP/E-164/Pt-XI/1318 dated 29.06.2022 to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Power, requesting for posthumous regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner for the purpose of providing family pension benefits to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland by letter bearing No.PWR/ESTT-09/15/217 dated 8 th August, 2022 requested the department to identify the vacant post against which posthumous regularization of the service of late Toshimeren can be facilitated and thereafter, to re-submit the proposal. However, the respondent No.3 by letter bearing No.ENCP/E-164/Pt-XI/2082 dated 23 rd August, 2022 requested the Government to reconsider its earlier direction in view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of “ The State of Nagaland & Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi ” reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 818 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by letter No.PWR/ESTT-40/2022 dated 31.10.2022, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Power, reiterated its earlier stand and requested the respondent No.3 to identify any vacant post (Group-C & D) against which the posthumous regularization of the service of the late Toshimeren may be facilitated. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authorities had not done anything in pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 31.10.2022 for identifying the vacant post for the purpose of posthumous regularization of the service of the husband of the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.3 has not complied with the directions of State Government communicated to it by above mentioned letters dated 08.08.2022 and 31.08.2022 in spite of several representations made by the petitioner to that effect. 12. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.3 has not complied with the directions of State Government communicated to it by above mentioned letters dated 08.08.2022 and 31.08.2022 in spite of several representations made by the petitioner to that effect. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner has rendered unblemished services in the Department of Power for more than 28 years and he was the seniormost work-charged handyman as on 01.06.2010 as per the data furnished by the respondent authorities. He also submits that as per the Nagaland Work-charged and Casual Employees Act, 2001, the State Government had adopted a scheme for regularization of the services of work-charged employees and issued the Office Memorandum bearing No.AR-3/Gen-67/2001(Pt) dated 22.09.2004, which enables the State Government to regularize the services of work-charged employees against available vacancies with a ceiling of 50% of all regular vacancy of similar nature arising in a year. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid Office Memorandum enables the Government to regularize the service of the late husband of the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court has not put a complete ban on posthumous regularization of service of a work-charged employee in the case of “ The State of Nagaland & Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi ” (supra). He submits that the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. He further submits that each case depends on its own facts and unless the facts of two cases resembles, the decision rendered in earlier case may not be applicable to the latter case. He submits that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings- (a) State of Rajasthan Vs. Ganeshilal reported in (2008) 2 SCC 533 , (b) Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533 , (c) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. N. R. Vairamani & Anr . reported in (2004) 8 SCC 579 , 14. Ganeshilal reported in (2008) 2 SCC 533 , (b) Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533 , (c) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. N. R. Vairamani & Anr . reported in (2004) 8 SCC 579 , 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case even the State Government by its letters dated 08.08.2022 and 31.08.2022 have indicated its willingness for posthumous regularization of the service of the late husband of the petitioner and accordingly, directed the respondent No.3 to identify vacant post. He, therefore, submits that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the facts in the case “ The State of Nagaland & Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi ” (supra). 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the services of work-charged employees, who were junior to the deceased husband of the petitioner have already been regularized. Under above circumstances, depriving the petitioner from getting the family pensionary benefitsin respect of the service rendered by her deceased husband for long 28 years would be violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore,prays for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to comply with the letter No. PWR/ESTT- 40/2022 dated 31.10.2022 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Power and allow the posthumous regularization of the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner for the purpose of giving family pensionary benefit to the petitioner. 16. On the other hand, Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has opposed the prayer for posthumous regularization of the service of the late husband of the petitioner. She submits that the husband of the petitioner died on 22.08.2011 while serving as work-charged handyman, however and that time there was no regular post of handyman and it was only by order dated 10.01.2012 sanction for creation of regular post of handyman was accorded. She submits that had the husband of the petitioner been alive, he would have been regularized in the year 2012 as he was seniormost in the seniority list as on 01.06.2010. 17. She submits that had the husband of the petitioner been alive, he would have been regularized in the year 2012 as he was seniormost in the seniority list as on 01.06.2010. 17. The learned Government Advocate has also submitted that the ratio of the decision in the case of “ The State of Nagaland & Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi ” (supra) is squarely applicable to the case of the deceased husband of the petitioner as both cases relate to posthumous regularization of service. She submits that as the husband of the petitioner was not entitled to regularization of his service during his lifetime as at time of his death there was no regular post of handyman against which his service could have been regularized. She also submits that in the instant case the petitioner approached this Court after 12 years of the death of her husband, which may also beconsidered as a valid ground for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 18. She submits that inter-departmental communication/correspondence between different departments of the Government does not create any legally enforceable right for posthumous regularization of the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner. She submits that as the posthumous regularization has been barred by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of “ The State of Nagaland & Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi ”(supra), no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated by the State respondents. She accordingly prays for dismissing the writ petition. 19. In support of his submissions, the learned Government Advocate has cited following rulings of this Court: (a) Methavino Neihu Vs. State of Nagaland and Ors. (Judgment dated 19.02.2024 in WP(C) No. 102/2019); and (b) Smti Nyahsula Santham Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. (Judgment dated 20.06.2025 in WP(C) No. 332/2023) 20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents annexed therewith. I have also gone through the judgments cited by learned counsel for both sides. 21. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the husband of the petitioner, namely, late Toshimeren was appointed as work-charged handyman on 02.05.1983 and he died in harness on 22.08.2011 as a work-charged handyman. I have also gone through the judgments cited by learned counsel for both sides. 21. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the husband of the petitioner, namely, late Toshimeren was appointed as work-charged handyman on 02.05.1983 and he died in harness on 22.08.2011 as a work-charged handyman. It also appears that though he died in the year 2011, his release order was issued in the year 2019 by the Office Order bearing No.CED/E-59/2019-20/199-203 dated 19.09.2019. Thus, the plea of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner approached this Court after 13 years after the death of her husband has to be considered in the context of the fact that the release order of her deceased husband was issued after about eight (08) years of his death. It also appears that before approaching this Court, the petitioner had approached the Government of Nagaland seeking benefit of family pension, however, the Government was engaged in inter-departmental correspondence in respect of the issue of regularization of the service of deceased husband of the petitioner. The last of such inter-departmental correspondence was on 31.10.2022, i.e., the letter No. PWR/ESTT-40/22 dated 31.10.2022 from the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Power Department to the respondent No.3, whereby the earlier directions to the respondent No. 3 by letter dated 23.08.2022 were reiterated and a request was made for identifying a vacant post (Group C and D) against which posthumous regularization of the service of late husband of the petitioner can be facilitated. Thus, considering the fact that the last inter-departmental correspondence in respect of posthumous regularization of the service of the husband of the deceased was on 31.10.2022, the filing of the writ petition by the present petitioner on 18.06.2024, in the considered opinion of this Court,does not appear to be hit by delay and laches. 22. It also appears that the husband of the petitioner rendered service for 28 years 3 months as work-charged handyman, till the date of his death. 23. On perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the State respondents, it appears that the petitioner?s husband was the senior-most work-charged handyman as on 01.06.2010 as per the tentative seniority list prepared by the respondent authorities. 24. It also appears that the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/Gen-67/2001(PT) dated 22.09.2004, which provided for the scheme of regularization for work-charged employees was in force when the husband of the petitioner died. 24. It also appears that the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/Gen-67/2001(PT) dated 22.09.2004, which provided for the scheme of regularization for work-charged employees was in force when the husband of the petitioner died. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid Office Memorandum is reproduced herein below:- "Government of Nagaland Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Branch) No. AR-3/Gen-67/2001 (Pt)                                                                                                                                                          Dated, Kohima, 22nd Sept’ 2004. Office Memorandum Sub: Policy and Scheme for Regularisation of service of Work-Charged Employees. There are large numbers of work charged employees in various Departments. Many of these employees have been serving continuously for many years. They have been representing to Government for regularization of their service, Some Departments have been regularizing service of work charged employees from time to time against available vacancies. However, no transparent and rational policy and criteria is discernible in process of regularization of service of work charged employees. Therefore, in order to examine issue of regularization of work charged employees in various Departments, State Government set up a Committee under Chairmanship of Shri Lalthara IAS, Additional Chief Secretary (Geology & Mining). On basis of recommendations of Committee for regularisation of Work-Charged employees in State, Government hereby adopts following policy and scheme for regularisation of service of work charge employees serving under various Departments of State Government. (i) Each Department having Work-Charged employees should maintain a list of work-charged employees in various categories in order of their length of service. (ii) Regularisation of work-charged employees will be done against available regular vacancies (iii) 50% of all regular vacancies of similar nature arising in a year will be reserved for regularisation of Work-Charged employees, and remaining 50% will be filled up as per normal rules of recruitment; (iv) Work charged employees will have right to be considered first for regularization against 50% of all future vacancies of similar nature in Department for which they possess requisite qualification. Such regularization will be considered on basis of seniority-cum-merit. This means that senior most work charged employee in relevant category will be regularized subject to his/her fitness for vacant post. (v) In case no work charged employee is found suitable for regularization in terms of above clause.Department will obtain clearance of P&AR Department before making any fresh appointment against quota reserved for work-charged employees explaining circumstances for not being able to fill up vacancy through regularization of work charged employee. (v) In case no work charged employee is found suitable for regularization in terms of above clause.Department will obtain clearance of P&AR Department before making any fresh appointment against quota reserved for work-charged employees explaining circumstances for not being able to fill up vacancy through regularization of work charged employee. (vi) No age bar would apply in cases for regularization if Work-Charged employee is below superannuation age. (vii) Regularized Work-Charged employees will be entitled to count in full their continuous work charged service towards pension benefits. (viii) Those Departments which have not approached Nagaland work Charged and causal Employees Commission should do so immediately to get optimum strength of Work-Charged employees fixed for their Departments. They should take all possible Measures including pursuing YRS option vigorously to being down strength of Work-Charged employees to level recommended by commission. (ix) Adequate provision for payment of work charged employees should be made in budget and regular monthly payment of work charged wages ensured. (x) All new work charged appointments should be banned. Any person accepting Work-Charged service in Government would be doing so at his/her own risk. Any new work charged appointment should be treated as illegal and strict action taken against appointments specific approval of cabinet must be taken. Sd/- LALTHARA Addl Chief Secretary to Government of Nagaland." 25. Later on, in the year 2015, the Government of Nagaland have issued another Office Memorandum bearing No.AR-3/Gen- 201/2009 dated Kohima the 17 th March, 2015, which also provided for the scheme for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees. However, as the husband of the petitioner had died in harness much before issuance of the said Office Memorandum, hence, the case of the husband of the petitioner shall have to be considered in pursuant to the earlier Office Memorandum of the year 2004. 26. In the instant case, we have discussed hereinabove that the petitioner?s husband died in harness after rendering service to the State of Nagaland, as Work Charged Employee in the Power Department, for a long period of 28 years and 3 months. 27. It appears that the main plea of the learned Government Advocate in opposing the writ petition of the petitioner is that the Apex Court has, in the case of the “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra) barred the posthumous regularisation. 27. It appears that the main plea of the learned Government Advocate in opposing the writ petition of the petitioner is that the Apex Court has, in the case of the “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra) barred the posthumous regularisation. Whereas, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the facts of the present case are distinguishable and the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid case is not applicable to the instant case. Let us examine this issue. 28. On perusal of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra), it appears that nowhere in the said judgment the Apex Court has barred the posthumous regularisation of the service of a decease employee in a deserving case if it conforms the regularisation policy of the State Government. The judgment in the aforesaid case was rendered mainly on the basis of the facts of that case, hence, if the facts of this case are distinguishable from that of the aforesaid case, the ratio of the aforesaid case may not be applicable to the instant case. It appears that in the case of “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra), the petitioner, whose husband had expired in 2005, had approached the writ court after about 12 years of death of her husband. Though, in the instant case also, the petitioner approached this Court after 13 years of the death of her husband, however, the circumstances are quite different in this case as has already been discussed in Paragraph No. 21 of this judgment hereinbefore. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that on the question of approaching the Court, belatedly, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the case of “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi A chumi” (supra). 29. Secondly, in the case of “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi (supra), the petitioner was much below in the seniority Achumi” list when he had expired, however, in the instant case, the petitioner was senior most work charged handyman as per the seniority list dated 01.06.2010, which was prepared by the respondents. Nishevi A chumi” (supra). 29. Secondly, in the case of “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi (supra), the petitioner was much below in the seniority Achumi” list when he had expired, however, in the instant case, the petitioner was senior most work charged handyman as per the seniority list dated 01.06.2010, which was prepared by the respondents. Thus, on this count also, the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the facts in the case of the “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra). 30. Thirdly, in the case of the “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra), the petitioner during his lifetime never claimed regularisation, however, in the instant case in Paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that her husband, during his lifetime had approached the Department, on several occasions for regularisation of his service at par with other similarly situated persons who were regularized, although, who were junior to him. In their affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, they have not denied the assertion made by the petitioner in Paragraph No. 5 of her petition. The State has only taken the stand that as there was no regular post of handyman prior to 10.01.2012, his services could not be regularized. However, it has not denied the fact that the husband of the petitioner had on serval occasion approached the authorities for regularisation of his service. Thus, on this count also, the facts of the present case, is distinguishable from that of the case of “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra). 31. In both the cases, relied on by the learned Government Advocate, i.e., Methavino Neihu Vs. State of Nagaland and Ors. (supra); and Smti Nyahsula Santham Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. (supra), the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court found the ratio of “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra), applicable in those cases, therefore, the prayer for posthumously regularisation of the services of the petitioners? husbands were rejected in those cases. However, in the instant case, we have seen that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from that of the case of“ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra). 32. The Apex Court in the case of “Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of T.N.” (supra) has observed as follows: “9. husbands were rejected in those cases. However, in the instant case, we have seen that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from that of the case of“ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra). 32. The Apex Court in the case of “Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of T.N.” (supra) has observed as follows: “9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board [ (1972) 2 WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877 (HL) [Sub nom British Railways Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]] . Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.” 33. The Apex Court has also observed in the case of “ State of Rajasthan Vs. Ganeshi Lal ” (supra)as follows: 12. “15. … Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [ 1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] (at p. 761) Lord MacDermott observed : (All ER p. 14 C-D) „The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge….? 16. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [ 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 : (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL)] Lord Reid said (at All ER p. 297g-h), „Lord Atkin's speech … is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances?. Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062 : (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed : (All ER p. 1274d-e) „One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament;? And, in British Railways Board v. Herrington [ 1972 AC 877 : (1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)] Lord Morris said : (All ER p. 761c) "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.? 17. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 18. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT [ AIR 1962 SC 680 ], AIR p. 688, para 19) „19. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 18. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT [ AIR 1962 SC 680 ], AIR p. 688, para 19) „19. … Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive?. *** "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.? ” [Ed. : See Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda, (2004) 3 SCC 75 , pp. 83-84, paras 15-18.] 34. Thus, there is no dispute on the legal proposition that each case depends on its on facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. Doctrine of precedent is applicable only in case where facts situation of the decision on which reliance is sought to be placed are similar. If the facts are distinguishable, the doctrine of precedent is not applicable. 35. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the facts of the case of the “ State of Nagaland and Others Vs. Nishevi Achumi” (supra)the ratio of the said case is not applicable to the instant case. 36. Now let us examine as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get reliefs which she has prayed for in her writ petition. 37. As per the seniority list of the work charged handyman, which was maintained by the respondent No.3, the husband of the petitioner was the senior most work charged handyman at the time of his death. 36. Now let us examine as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get reliefs which she has prayed for in her writ petition. 37. As per the seniority list of the work charged handyman, which was maintained by the respondent No.3, the husband of the petitioner was the senior most work charged handyman at the time of his death. Though, he had rendered services to the State for long period for 28 years and 3 months, however, the State, in spite of having a regularisation policy in force, i.e., Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 did not regularize his service prior to his death. The only ground, which has some force, which the State respondent took for doing so is non-availability of a regular post of handyman against which the services of the husband of the petitioner could have been regularized. The respondents even took the plea that as the regular post of handyman was created only on 10.01.2012, had the husband of the petitioner been alive on the said date, he would have regularized, as he was the senior most work charged handyman working in the Department. 38. The Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 provides at Column No. (ii) that regularisation of the work charged employees will be done against available regular vacancy. It is unfortunate that the husband of the petitioner after rendering services to the State for more than 28 years died in harness on 22.08.2011. Though, the Government was having policy of regularisation since 2004 and have utilized the services of petitioner?s husband for more than 28 years as work charged handyman, it did not create a regular post of handyman for this long period of 28 years. This Court is of the considered opinion that merely having a stipulation in the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 to the effect that the regularisation of work charged employees will be done against available regular vacancy and at the same time not taking any steps for creation of such regular post of handyman, after utilizing the services of the petitioner?s husband for more than 28 years as work charged handyman, would be regarded as exploitative act on the part of the State. If a particular post is necessary for smooth functioning of any department of the Government, it would be unfair on the part of the Government to get the said work done through a work charged employee for a long period of more than 28 years without creating a regular post for the said work in the concerned department. As it is the Government only which can create posts which are necessary for smooth functioning of various departments of the Government, it was incumbent upon the Government to create regular post for such work. 39. As the petitioner's husband is found entitled under the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 for regularisation of his service during his lifetime, but for availability of a regular post of handyman and as discussed herein above it was the duty of the State Government to create such posts so that the regularisation policy which was in force from seven years prior to the death of the husband of the petitioner could have been given effect to in its true spirit. For the lapse on the part of State Government to discharge its constitutional obligations as a welfare State, the family members of a work charged employee who rendered services to the State for more than 28 years cannot be made to suffer and deprived of family pension which they would have got, had the Government had discharged its constitutional obligation by creating the required regular post at appropriate time. 40. For the reasons discussed in foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that a government is duty bound to give the petitioner what is due to her for the services rendered by her deceased husband to the State of Nagaland for more than 28 years. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the husband of the petitioner namely, late Toshimeren one day before the date of his expiry for the purpose of giving pensionary benefit including family pension to his wife (present petitioner) and children. If found necessary, Government may create a supernumery post for facilitating the same. On the question of entitlement of arrear family pension, the same shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner with effect from three years prior to filing of the present writ petition, i.e., from 18.06.2021. 41. If found necessary, Government may create a supernumery post for facilitating the same. On the question of entitlement of arrear family pension, the same shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner with effect from three years prior to filing of the present writ petition, i.e., from 18.06.2021. 41. The respondents are directed to complete the process of granting pensionary benefits, including family pension to the petitioner within a period of four (04) months from the date of this order. 42. With the above directions, this writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.