JUDGMENT : R. Mazumdar, J. Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner as appellant assailing the judgment & order dated 27/06/2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 305/2021 by which the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The brief facts leading to the institution of the writ petition is that the writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as Work- charged Khalasi by an order dated 23/05/1984 along with 17 other persons by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Phek Division, Phek. The petitioner continued to serve for 35 years till he was released from service by the order No. SD/PHE/MLR/EST- 2/2000/09-18 dated 24/05/2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PHED, Meluri Sub-Division, Phek, Nagaland. 4. The petitioner approached this Court by W.P.(C) No. 305/2021, relying on different judgments of this Court to emphasis that he was entitled to have been paid the scale of pay along with his colleagues and his juniors and that he was entitled to be regularized in service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner asserted that he was deprived of similar treatment which was allowed to his colleagues and junior contending that the same would amount to unequal treatment and violation of the provision of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner prayed thatappropriate writ, orders or directions were required to be issued to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner against the lowest scale of pay permissible for Grade-IV employees within the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Nagaland so that he would be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits as other similarly situated person. 5. The Official respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition contesting the prayer of the petitioner by stating that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular and on temporary basis only and that he was not appointed against any sanctioned post. The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others -versus- Umadevi (3) & Others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , to stress that person who are temporary employees or contractual or casual workers did not deserve regularisation. The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others -versus- Umadevi (3) & Others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , to stress that person who are temporary employees or contractual or casual workers did not deserve regularisation. The respondents however submitted that when there was no rule or guidelines framed by the Government for giving the scale of pay to fixed pay employees and for their further regularization and the claim of the petitioner is thus misconceived. The respondents referred to the O.M dated 23/07/2020 to insist that all the fixed pay employees who had retired on or before 1 st January 2020 did not have the right to claim “scale of pay”. The respondent authorities had relied upon the judgment passed in W.A No. 22(K)/2013 Tekatemjen Ao -vrs- The State of Nagaland & Others 6. The writ petitioner has filed his affidavit-in-reply controverting the ground raised in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. The petitioner further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 7. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 27/06/2023 recorded the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties extensively. The learned Single Judge observed that there is no dispute that the petitioner had served the department for 35 years as Work-charged employee prior to his retirement from service. The learned Single Judge thereafter referred to the provision of the ‘Nagaland Work Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001’ and he also referred to the O.M dated 17/03/2015 which is referred to herein before. The learned Single Judge observed that since the petitioner was on a fixed pay, he did not fulfill the eligibility to be regularized in service as per the scheme formulated by the O.M dated 17/03/2015. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner did not submit any representation to the authority for being considered for payment in scale of pay during his service tenure and he made such claim only after his retirement. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner did not submit any representation to the authority for being considered for payment in scale of pay during his service tenure and he made such claim only after his retirement. The learned Single Judge thereafter referred to the case of State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Nishevi Achumi , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 818 , the judgment & order dated 08/06/2023 passed in W.A No. 27/2022 ( State of Nagaland & Others -vrs- Shri. Alemba ), the judgment & order of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others -versus- Umadevi (3) & Others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and judgement passed in State of Manipur & Another -versus- KSH. Moirangninthou Singh & Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 544 , to negate the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to regularisation of his service and to consequential pension and pensionary benefits. The reliance of the petitioner in the case of State of Gujarat & Others -versus- Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel , referred by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 1109/2022 and the case of State of Manipur & Others -versus - KSH. Ibobal Singh , reported in 1997(2) GLT 209 referred to by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Judge by observing that the facts of the writ petition under consideration was different from the facts of the cases relied upon by the petitioner. Consequently, the learned Single Judge observed the absence of any power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the regularisation or absorption in service and having considered that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions to be regularized in service as per the O.M dated 17/03/2015, the claim of the petitioner to be regularized was rejected. The Court did not delve into the claim for consideration of the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits it was deemed futile in the absence of regularisation of the service of the petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 8. The writ petitioner is now in intra-court appeal assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, praying for setting aside and quashing of the same and praying for directing the respondents to retrospectively regularize the service of the petitioner/appellant for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits alone. 9. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 8. The writ petitioner is now in intra-court appeal assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, praying for setting aside and quashing of the same and praying for directing the respondents to retrospectively regularize the service of the petitioner/appellant for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits alone. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and we have gone through the annexures of the writ appeal which also include the copy of the pleadings before the learned Single Judge. 10. Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that it was the legislative intent to regularize the Work-charge employees under the provision of the Nagaland Work Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001 and the hurdle which was created in the way of the regularization of the service of the petitioner as contained in the O.M dated 17/03/2015 was in fact an attempt to override the legislative intent. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that inequality and discrimination was apparent in the present case, when persons who were similarly situated and who were junior to the petitioner, had been afforded the scale of pay and regularization whereas, the petitioner was denied such benefit without any rhyme or reason. The learned counsel for the appellant has however argued that the intent of the O.M was to convert the post held by the incumbent whose service were being regularized into sanctioned post. He argued that this intent neutralized the argument of the respondents that in the absence of sanctioned post, the petitioner cannot be regularized. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the law laid down in Prem Singh -vs- State of U.P , reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the judgment passed in SLP(C) No. 1109/2022 in the case of State of Manipur & Others -vs- KSH. Ibohal Singh , reported in 1997 (2) GLT 209 , were not correctly appreciated. Ibohal Singh , reported in 1997 (2) GLT 209 , were not correctly appreciated. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment rendered in the case of State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Nishevi Achumi , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 818 , State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Shri. Alemba and State of Manipur & Others -vs- KSH. Moirangninthou Singh & Another , reported in (2007) 10 SCC 544 , was erroneous as the facts of those cases differ from the facts of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore prayed that the impugned judgment & order deserves an interference in this appeal and he prayed that the directions be issued for regularization of services of the petitioner with retrospective effect to enable him to draw his pension and pensionary benefits. 11. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 to 4 has vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the contents of paragraph-4, 5, 6 & 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition succinctly explain the stand of the respondent authorities with regard to the prayer of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed in W.A No. 22(K)/2013 Tekatemjen Ao -vs- State of Nagaland & Others, to emphasis that inordinate delay in absence of any explanation whatsoever has to result in refusal to grant the relief sought for. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned Single Judge had rightly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Shri. Alemba , passed in W.A No. 27/2022, to state that the petitioner did not deserve any relief. The learned counsel for the respondents has also endorsed the rejection of the learned Single Judge to the reliance placed in the case of the State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Nishevi Achumi , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 818 and the State of Manipur & Another -vs- KSH. Moirangninthou Singh & Others , reported in (2007) 10 SCC 544 , to reject the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant herein. 12. Moirangninthou Singh & Others , reported in (2007) 10 SCC 544 , to reject the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant herein. 12. To decide the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we have to first take up the issue as to whether there was any delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching this Court in the writ petition and in case there was delay, whether the same would be sufficient to deny the appellant, a consideration of his writ petition on merit. It is settled position of law that inordinate delay in absence of any explanation whatsoever may result in refusal of granting the relief sought for in the writ petition. It is also a settled position of law that discretion is to be exercised by a writ court and in case the delay is not enormous or inordinate, the writ court may proceed to decide the contention raised on the merit. In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others -vs- Maharashtra Industrial Development Co-operation & Others , reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held has follows; “13.The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the party’s defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. (Vide: P.S. Sadasivaswamy v . State of T.N. AIR 1974 SC 2271 ; State of M.P. & Ors. The validity of the party’s defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. (Vide: P.S. Sadasivaswamy v . State of T.N. AIR 1974 SC 2271 ; State of M.P. & Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 251 ; and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2009) 1SCC 768;) 14. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have infact emerged, by delay on the part of the Petitioners. (Vide:Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 769 ; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Anr. v. Mst. Katiji& Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353 ; Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur& Ors., AIR 1993 SC 802 ; Dayal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1140 ; and Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2161 )” When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for parties, for a party cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. In the case of Shiv Das -vs- Union of India , reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the High Court would not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and convenience but also injustice on third parties. None of the situation envisaged in Shiv Das (supra) would entail in the present case in the event delay is not allowed to defeat the case of the petitioner. In the present case, we find that the claim of the petitioner, if ultimately granted would result in him becoming eligible for pension and pensionary benefits after having served the State respondents for 35 years and no rights of any third party would be effected by the same. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India -vs- Tarseem Singh , reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 has held that where a service related claim is based on continuing wrong, relief can be granted if there is a long delay in seeking remedy with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, of such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will be not entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. 14. We have noticed that the petitioner has sought for regularization of his service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only and he has sought no relief for any other benefits for past service rendered by him. 14. We have noticed that the petitioner has sought for regularization of his service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only and he has sought no relief for any other benefits for past service rendered by him. We have also noticed that the learned Single Judge did not dismiss the petition on the ground of delay and laches and had rather proceeded to decide the issue on merit, thereby tacitly implying that the delay in approaching the Court was not considered to be a hurdle for the petitioner to have considered his case by the Court. 15. The reference by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Nishevi Achumi , in our view is not applicable to the present case at hand as the facts in that case were totally different. In the case of Nishevi Achumi (supra), the wife of the deceased employee had preferred a writ petition claiming his regularization in service so that she may be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. The Hon’ble Apex Court was clear in its finding that the deceased employee who died in the year 2005 did not claim regularization during his life time. The Hon’ble Apex Court also took into consideration the fact that the wife of the deceased employee sought to be claiming regularization after a period of twelve years after the death of the deceased employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the service of the other Work- charge employee who were senior to the deceased, were regularized after the death of the of the deceased employee. It was only on such circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the directions passed by this Court to regularize the service of the deceased husband and to pay her the family pension. None of the aforesaid facts are present in the present petition. 16. The reliance of the learned Single Judge on the judgment and order dated 08/06/2023 passed in W.A No. 27/2022 in the case of State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Shri. Alemba now requires consideration. None of the aforesaid facts are present in the present petition. 16. The reliance of the learned Single Judge on the judgment and order dated 08/06/2023 passed in W.A No. 27/2022 in the case of State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Shri. Alemba now requires consideration. In the said case, the Co-ordinate Bench had held that the petitioner herein did not fulfill the requirement of either of the two schemes for regularization of service and therefore, it could not said that the State has meted out a discriminatory treatment for declining the request for regularization in service. It was held that the writ petitioner in those cases did not make a prayer for regularization of service prior to retirement. The representation was submitted only after he had retired from service and only for the purpose of receiving pension. Reference was made to the case of Union of India & Others -vs- llmo Devi & Another , reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 899 , to hold that the High Court cannot direct the State to sanction and create posts for regularization of part-time employees. What we notice is that in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred by the Division Bench of this Court in that case, the issue of sanction and creation of posts for part-time employees was under consideration, whereas in the present case filed by the petitioner, he is a full-time Work-charged employee who dedicated 35 years of service. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant during his argument had drawn our attention to the judgment & order dated 06/02/2024 passed in W.A No. 35/2022, which we find has a direct impact on the present case. For ready reference, the following paragraph of the judgment & order passed in W.A No. 35/2022 are extracted herein below; “21. That, in respect of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 2022, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of decision of two earlier Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 12(K) 2009, dated 22.02.2011, (State of Nagaland & Ors. vs. Ramaswami) and State of Manipur & Ors. That, in respect of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 2022, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of decision of two earlier Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 12(K) 2009, dated 22.02.2011, (State of Nagaland & Ors. vs. Ramaswami) and State of Manipur & Ors. vs. KSH Ibobal Singh reported in 1997 2 GLT 209, the decision in Writ Appeal No.27 of 2022 is per incurium in view of the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). The submissions, so advanced by Mr. Sentiyanger, received due consideration of this court and we find substance in the same. It appears that in the said two decisions, the Division Bench of this Court, having considered the length of service, so rendered by the petitioners of said two petitions, had upheld the impugned decisions of learned Single Judges, by which the respondent authorities were directed to extend pensionary and other retirement benefits. Though the decision in KSH Ibobal Singh (supra) was discussed and distinguished in W.A. No. 27/2022, the decisions in Writ Appeal No. 12(K)/2009, dated 22.02.2011, having not been taken into account in the decision in Writ Appeal No.27 of 2022, and having been later in point of time, the decision in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 2022appears to be per incurium in view of decision of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that ratio laid down in the said two cases would not advance the case of the appellants.” 18. Confronted thus, the learned counsel for the respondents, in his usual fairness, conceded that the reliance placedon the case of the State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Shri. Alemba by the learned Single Judge, without reference to the case of State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Ramaswami and in the case of State of Manipur -vs- KSH Ibobal Singh may require a reconsideration. We humbly agree with the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench passed in W.A No. 35/2022 dated 06/02/2024 in the case of State of Nagaland -versus- Angphei Konyak reported in 2024 (1) NLJ 384 that the judgment passed in W.A No. 27/2022 ( State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Shri. Alemba) appears to be per incurium. 19. We humbly agree with the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench passed in W.A No. 35/2022 dated 06/02/2024 in the case of State of Nagaland -versus- Angphei Konyak reported in 2024 (1) NLJ 384 that the judgment passed in W.A No. 27/2022 ( State of Nagaland & Others -vs- Shri. Alemba) appears to be per incurium. 19. In the case of State of Manipur & Another -versus- KSH Moirangnithou Singh & Others (supra) , which was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, the Hon’ble Apex Court was seized with the matter where the Home Guard had sought for regularization of his services. The services of the Home Guards were governed by the Manipur Home Guards Act 1996 where the Home Guards was constituted as a voluntary organization for service in emergencies. The Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that such voluntary services under the Manipur Home Guards Act cannot be treated at par with other organizations like the army, paramilitary organizations or the civil police. The Apex Court has held that the terms of office of a member of the Home Guard shall be for 3 years and though he would be eligible to continue under such post until he attains the age of 55 years, but he would not be entitled to continue till he attains the age of 55 years. It was in those circumstances that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that only on the basis of the fact that the employees who have put in 10 years in service, the Home Guards could not be directed to be regularized, since it was held in the case of State of Karnataka & Others -versus- Umadevi(3) & Others (supra) , the Court cannot directregularization in service. 20. In our considered opinion, the facts of the present case differ from the fact in the case of State of Manipur & Another -versus- KSH Moirangninthou Singh & Others (supra) . In the present case, there is no Act which limits the tenure of appointment of the petitioner. Rather the ‘Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act 2001’ provided for a scheme of absorption in service and stipulates that the State Government may draw up a scheme for absorption inservice of Work-charged employees into regular Government service. In the present case, there is no Act which limits the tenure of appointment of the petitioner. Rather the ‘Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act 2001’ provided for a scheme of absorption in service and stipulates that the State Government may draw up a scheme for absorption inservice of Work-charged employees into regular Government service. Since the facts are not similar, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment & order rendered in the case of State of Manipur & Another -versus- KSH Moirangnithou Singh & Others (supra) will not advance the argument of the respondent authorities. 21. In the case of Tekatemjen Ao -versus- State of Nagaland & Others in W.A No. 22(K)/2013 reported in 2014 (5) GLT 729 , the petitioner had retired from service in the year 01/04/1995 after rendering 19 years of service i.e. prior to the enactment of the ‘Nagaland Work Charge and Casual Employees Regulation Act 2001’. It was in those facts and circumstances of the case that the Court had hold that during his entire period of service, the petitioner therein had not approached the Court with the prayer for regularization and the Act of 2001 having coming to force after his superannuation in the year 1995, has approached the Court for regularization of his service in the year 2012 and therefore it was held that there was inordinate delay. In the present case, we do not find any similarity of facts since the petitioner has not committed inordinate delay. Moreover, unlike the case of Tekatemjen Ao (supra), in the present case, the Act of 2001 cast the responsibilities on the State to make provision for regularization of service of Work-charged employees. 22. In the case of Prem Singh -versus- Uttar Pradesh & Others , reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it would be unfair on the part of the State and its officials to take work from the employees on the Work-charged basis. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below; “31. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work- charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work- charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged establishment. 36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court’s order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.” 23. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.” 23. It is noticed that in the said case, the Apex Court had also referred to the decision of the State of Karnataka -versus- Umadevi(3) which required that in case service have been rendered for more than 10 years without the cover of the Court’s order, as one-time measure, the services of such employees are required to be regularized. 24. In the case of State of Manipur & Others -versus- KSH Ibobal Singh & Another, reported as 1997 (2) GLT 209 , the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows; “12 We, unequivocally of the view that the term "contract appointment" must be terminable at some stage of their service. But if contract appointment continued uninterruptedly till the age of superannuation as is happened in the case at hand, the character of the contract appointment automatically changes and the employee has to be treated under the normal Government service rules, entitling them pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the stand taken by the appellant Government that the respondents were on contract service and therefore, even if they retire on attaining the age of superannuation they will not be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits is unacceptable. If they are on contract service their services could have been terminated when they are still youthful and they could have gainfully employed in some other avocation. But then, after using their entire services, drained out their energy and when they are aged, old and infirm and incapable of functioning, allowing them to go empty handed is an invasion of mandate of Articles 14 and 21. Right to live has been interpreted as right to live with dignity. Unless citizens have means for sustenance right to live with dignity will have no meaning. The contention of me learned counsel for the appellant are therefore rejected as untenable in law,” 25. In a very recent case of Jaggo -versus- Union of India & Others , reported as 2024 SCC Online 3826 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows; “22. The contention of me learned counsel for the appellant are therefore rejected as untenable in law,” 25. In a very recent case of Jaggo -versus- Union of India & Others , reported as 2024 SCC Online 3826 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows; “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: •Misuse of “Temporary” Lables : Employee engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or ‘contractual”, even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. Using Outsourcing as a shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. Using Outsourcing as a shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 26. What follows from the aforesaid judgments is that the State can, as it often does, resort to what is seen temporary engagement but such engagement at times last more than three deprecated as in the present case. The approach of the State authorities is to deny the employees, who have served their entire tenure, of their pension and other benefits by resorting to a stand that the temporary employees would not be entitled for such benefits. The Court have deprecated such approach by the State. Courts have been consistent in upholding the right of pension and pensionary benefits in situations similar to the situation being faced by the present petitioner. It is already on record that the petitioner has prayed for regularization of his service only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and in view of the intent of the Act of 2001 and the law laid down by the State of Karnataka -versus- Umadevi (supra), which direct that one time exercise of regularization of irregular appointments should be carried out by the State, we are of the view that it would be wholly unfair to deny the petitioner the benefits of pension and pensionary benefits when admittedly persons who were appointed insimilar situation later than the petitioner have been given not only the pay scale but have been also regularized and/or absorbed in service, opening the gate for them to enjoy pension and pensionary benefits. 27. We that the Division Bench of this Court had disposed of Writ Appeal No.69/2007, Md. Arju Ali -Vs- State of Assam , reported in 2018 (5) GLR 318 by judgment and order dated 17.03.2009 with a direction that the writ petitioner therein be extended the similar benefits as the 31 other teachers. 27. We that the Division Bench of this Court had disposed of Writ Appeal No.69/2007, Md. Arju Ali -Vs- State of Assam , reported in 2018 (5) GLR 318 by judgment and order dated 17.03.2009 with a direction that the writ petitioner therein be extended the similar benefits as the 31 other teachers. Operative part of the judgment and order dated 17.03.2009 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- “(14) If a person was given a particular relief, another person, who is similarly placed should not be deprived of the same advantage, except where the facts and circumstances require a different treatment. The concept of justice cannot be expanded so as to cause heart-burning to other similarly placed candidates. One should get equality of opportunity in matters relating to public employment, which is the foundation of the provision as contained under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, discussion, as it is made out, we do not intend to go into the depth of the issue any more. (15) Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in light of what has been discussed above, as the appellant has been rendering continuous service in the school without getting salary for last 13 years and further considering that the Government has already regularised excess appointment of subject teachers, who were similarly placed with the appellant, we would like to close this writ appeal with a direction to the respondents to consider the prayer of the appellant to extend the same benefit to the appellant, which was given to all others, who were similarly situated. However, keeping in view the ordeal the appellant has experienced, the respondents are directed to complete the exercise within a period of 3(three) months from today.” 28. In the present case, we find that the respondents have admitted that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular and also that other similarly circumstances were given the benefits of not only scale of pay but have also been regularized on the basis that they had enjoyed the scale of pay and had completed 30 years of service. We have noticed that the respondents could not point out any reason as to why the petitioner had not been paid in the scale of pay. Further to that, he completed 35 years of service when he was superannuated on 30/06/2019. We have noticed that the respondents could not point out any reason as to why the petitioner had not been paid in the scale of pay. Further to that, he completed 35 years of service when he was superannuated on 30/06/2019. We have also seen that the State while regularizing or absorbing person who were juniors to the petitioner and were similar work-charged employees were adjusted or absorbed or regularized in the same post by converting into sanctioned post only for the purpose of regularizing or absorbing the concerned work-charged employees. In the absence of any explanation by the respondent authorities to lawfully deny the petitioner an equal treatment with the other work-charged employees and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been able to establish that he has faced discrimination, we deem fit it and appropriate to direct the State respondents to cause an enquiry into the service particulars of the petitioner and in the event it is found that persons similarly situated, whether contemporaries or juniors to the petitioner, have been afforded the scale of pay and subsequently regularization in service, the case of the petitioner be also considered for regularization of his service only for the purpose of making him eligible to the benefits of pension and other pensionary benefits at the applicable norms. We make it clear that in the event of such regularization, the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages on the basis of retrospective regularization granted to him. Since it is a matter of record that the other work-charged employees had been regularized in the same post which they were holding, the respondents may resort to the same procedure while considering the case of the petitioner. 29. The writ appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents shall carry out an enquiry and pass necessary order regarding the regularization or absorption in service of the petitioner to entitle him to the benefits of pension and other pensionary benefits within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 30. The writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost.