WP(C)/5/2024 of SHRI CHINGCHEM AND 25 ORS Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS on 31 August 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026

Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 26 petitioners, who are all Work Charged (Scale) Employees, under the department of Public Health Engineering Department, Nagaland, Kohima (PHE Department hereinafter), have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities for regularizing their services, in view of the Office Memorandum (OM hereinafter) dated 17.03.2015, within a definite time frame.

3. Mr. Walling, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are serving as Work Charged (Scale) Employees, under the PHED Department. He further submits that in view of the OM, issued bythe Government of Nagaland, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Branch), bearing No. AS-3/GEN-201/2009, dated 17.03.2018, signed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, containing the scheme for regularization and absorption of Work Charged and Casual Employees and revision of pay/wages, all the petitioners are entitled to be regularized in their services as they have completed 30 years of continues service. He further submits that the Additional Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland, vide its letter dated 03.10.2019; 18.03.2020; 17.11.2020; 19.04.2021; 25.11.2021; 07.07.2022; 19.01.2023; & 01.07.2023, had forwarded the details of the petitioners to take steps for early finalization of their proposal for regularization, to the Principal Secretary, Government of Nagaland, PHED, Kohima. But, no step has been taken till date for regularization of their services.

3.1. Mr. Walling further submits that, thereafter, Legal Notice, dated 07.11.2023, was issued to all the respondents for regularization of the petitioners’ services. But, the same also failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities and being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking the reliefs as aforesaid.

4. Per-contra, Ms. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, referring to the affidavit of the State respondents, submits that initially this petition was filed by 106 writ petitioners, claiming for regularization of their services, in terms of OM dated 17.03.2015, but in the meantime, services of 81 writ petitioners have been regularized and as per the amended writ petition, services of only 26 writ petitioners are yet to be regularized. She also submits that in the meantime, services of petitioner Nos. 9, 10 & 11 have also been regularized, in terms of the aforesaid OM dated 17.03.2015.

4.1. Ms. Ayemi further submits that in respect of petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26, the Finance Department has already given its approval and some formalities are required to be completed to regularize their services.

4.2. Ms. Ayemi also submits that in respect of petitioner Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, the proposal has been re-submitted and in order to complete the entire process, sufficient time may be given to the respondent authorities and this writ petition may be closed.

4.3. Ms. Ayemi also submits that for regularization of services of Work Charged Employees, the process has to be undergone several stages, in view of the OM dated 17.03.2015, such as (i) clearance of Personnel Department; (ii) clearance of Finance Department;

(iii) clearance of Manpower Rationalization Committee (MRC hereinafter); and (iv) finally the Cabinet approval. She further submits that it is not certain as to when the MRC will sit and after approval of the said Committee, approval of the Cabinet has also to be obtained.

5. In reply, Mr. Walling, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the respondent authorities have initiated the process of regularization of the remaining petitioners, giving a definite time line to complete the entire process, this petition may be closed.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the OM dated 17.03.2015.

7. It appears that the respondent authorities have already regularized the services of petitioner Nos. 9, 10 & 11. And for regularization of services of remaining petitioners, the process is may take some time as the process has to undergo as many as four stages.

8. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also taking note of the steps so taken by the respondent authorities for regularization of services of the remaining petitioners, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to complete the entire process of regularization of services of the remaining petitioners, by 31.12.2026.

9. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Comparing Assistant