Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1452 (GAU)

Hanan Kath @ Hanon Kath v. State of Nagaland

2025-08-27

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2025
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. In the instant writ petition, there are two petitioners who seek appropriate directions for compliance to the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 in as much as the petitioners duly claim that they are eligible as per the said O.M. for their services to be regularized. 3. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that he was appointed as Work/Charged Labour, fixed pay on 02.08.1989 under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PHED, Kohima, Rural Division and subsequently vide an Office Order dated 15.01.2020 he was promoted to Work/Charged Khalasi in the scale of pay of Rs. 3000-15200/- per month with effect from 01.01.2020. The petitioner No. 1 was also issued a WC I.D. Card dated 06.02.2021. The petitioner No. 1 served for a period of 35 years and was released from service with effect from 31.08.2024. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that in terms with the O.M. dated 17.03.2015, the petitioner No. 1 completed 30 years on 02.08.2019. 4. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Work/Charged Labour on 21.12.1986 under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PHED, Kohima Rural Division and was promoted to the post of Control Man with a scale of pay with effect from 21.03.2000. The petitioner No. 2 on completion of 35 years of service was released on 07.01.2022 with effect from 31.12.2021. It is the case of the petitioner No. 2 that he completed 30 years on 21.12.2016. 5. The case of the petitioners therefore, as would be clear from the materials on record is that the petitioners ought to have been regularized in terms of the O.M. dated 17.03.2015 on 02.08.2019 in so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned and 21.12.2019 in so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned. However, as the same was not done, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. It is seen that this Court vide Order dated 21.07.2025 issued notice and directed the Government Advocate to get instruction as to whether the case of the petitioners can be considered in terms of the O.M. dated 17.03.2015. 6. Ms. However, as the same was not done, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. It is seen that this Court vide Order dated 21.07.2025 issued notice and directed the Government Advocate to get instruction as to whether the case of the petitioners can be considered in terms of the O.M. dated 17.03.2015. 6. Ms. Bichano Kithan appearing on behalf of the respondents have placed before this Court the para-wise comments received from the Chief Engineer and HOD, PHED, Nagaland wherein it has been mentioned that the proposal for regularization and absorption of the petitioners along with similarly situated employees were submitted to the Government vide letter dated 19.04.2021 wherein the name of the petitioner No. 1 was reflected at Serial No. 14 and the name of the petitioner No. 2 was reflected at Serial No. 20 under the Rural Division. It has been further mentioned that upon proposals being duly submitted the P&AR Department on 14.02.2022 conveyed their clearance in respect to the petitioner No. 1 and in respect to the petitioner No. 2 the clearance from the P&AR Department came on 04.08.2022. It was further mentioned that the files were thereafter forwarded to the Finance Department for clearance; however, on 24.01.2023 file was returned back to the Respondent Department seeking certain compliance. Further to that, it was mentioned that the regularization in terms with the O.M. dated 17.03.2015 requires various clearance from various departments and as such the same is time consuming and as such further time would be required for regularizing the services of the petitioners so that they are entitled to the benefits. The instructions which have been submitted as kept on record and marked with the Letter-“X”. 7. This Court has perused the pleadings as well as the instructions kept on record and taken note of the respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. For the purpose of deciding the instant dispute, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. From a perusal of the said Office Memorandum, it is seen that the said Office Memorandum relates to the Scheme for regularization and absorption of Work-Charged and casual employees and the revision of wage/wages. For the purpose of deciding the instant dispute, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. From a perusal of the said Office Memorandum, it is seen that the said Office Memorandum relates to the Scheme for regularization and absorption of Work-Charged and casual employees and the revision of wage/wages. It is further seen from Clause 1 (i) that all existing Work-Charged and casual employees of the various Departments who are enjoying scale pay and who have completed 30 years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015 will be regularized by conversion of their posts into regular ones personal to them and subject to fulfillment of conditions as indicated therein. The conditions which have been stipulated from (a) to (h) of Clause 1(i) are in respect to the actions to be taken by the Respondent Departments and the employee has no role in complying with the said conditions. The only requirement as per Clause 1(i) is that the concerned employee has to complete 30 years or more continuous service as on 01.01.2015 and on scale pay. The case of the petitioner would come under Clause 1 (ii) in as much as the petitioner did not complete 30 years as on 01.01.2015, but completed only on 02.08.2019 and 20.12.2016. Taking into account the above, Clause 1 (ii) is reproduced herein under:- “1 (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: on 1 st July and 1 st January every year. The procedure and terms and conditions will be the same as laid down in this O.M.” 8. It would therefore be seen from a perusal of the above quoted Clause 1(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 that those Work- Charged and casual employees in scale pay who have completed or will complete 30 years of continuous service after 01.01.2015, their cases for st regularization will be taken up subsequently in two batches on 1st July and 1 st January every year. It is also seen that the compliance to the procedure and terms and conditions will have to be same as laid down in the Office Memorandum meaning thereby that the conditions enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (h) of Clause 1 (i) is required to be complied with. 9. This Court further takes note of Clause 3 of the said Office Memorandum which also stipulates that there are various requirements to be complied with by the respondent authorities, which would include the concurrence of the Finance Department as well as the Cabinet approval. 10. Taking into account that the petitioner No. 1 had completed 30 years of continuous service as on 02.08.2019 and the petitioner No. 2 on 21.01.2016 and was on scale of pay, both the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2’s rights to be regularized would arise on 02.08.2019 and 21.12.2016 respectively, which is an admitted fact as would be seen from the list enclosed to the communication dated 19.04.2021 which is a part of the instruction kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 11. This Court is aware of the fact that some more time would be required to complete the process of regularization. Further to that, in the procedure to be complied with, the petitioners have no role to play. This Court has also taken note of that the Respondent Authorities are mandated by the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 to do the needful. 12. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:- (i) As the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 have already completed 30 years of service on 02.08.2019 and 21.12.2016 respectively, the case of the petitioners be considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 at the earliest and preferably within 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment and order is served upon the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. (ii) This Court further takes note of that as the right of the petitioners’ to get their services regularized accrues on completion of 30 years which would be on 02.08.2019 and 21.12.2016 for the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 respectively, and as such, the regularization of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 be given effect to from 03.08.2019 and 22.12.2016 respectively. The petitioners on the basis of such regularization would be entitled to all benefits deeming that the petitioner had been regularized with effect from their dates of regularization as mentioned above.