Gauhati High Court - Kohima
Smti. S. Innyu K And 7 Ors vs The State Of Nagaland And 3 Ors on 12 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC020004662024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : WP(C)/170/2024
SMTI. S. INNYU K AND 7 ORS
CODE NO. MON-0106
CHOWKIDAR
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
MON NAGALAND
2: SMTI. C. MAIYAM
CODE NO. MON-0381
WORK CHARGED KHALASI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
MON NAGALAND
3: SHRI THRATAI KONYAK
CODE NO. MON-0187
WORK CHARGED KHALASI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
MON NAGALAND
4: SHRI AKWANG K
CODE NO. MON-0581
WORK CHARGED KHALASI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
MON NAGALAND
5: SHRI PHULEM KONYAK
CODE NO. MON-0151
WORK CHARGED KHALASI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
MON NAGALAND
Page No.# 2/5
6: SHRI MANJOI KONYAK
CODE NO. MON-0206
WORK CHARGED KHALASI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
MON NAGALAND
7: SHRI TEIWANG KONYAK
CODE NO. MON-0221
WORK CHARGED KHALASI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
MON NAGALAND
8: SHRI N. SHOPU
CODE NO. TSG-0187
WORK CHARGED KHALASI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
TUENSANG NAGALAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS
THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
NAGALAND KOHIMA
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF P AND AR DEPARTMENT
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
797001.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
PHED
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
797001.
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF PHED
KOHIMA
NAGALAND
Page No.# 3/5
797001
Advocate for the Petitioner : SUPONGWATI WALLING,
R ATSULA KIPS
Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL,
BEFORE
HONBLE MR JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
ORDER
Date : 12-03-2026 Heard Ms. T. Sekmou Chang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Walling, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Bichano, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. S. Chang, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularise their services in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are permanent residents of different districts in the State of Nagaland and are working as Work-Charged (Scale) employees, having been appointed between 1989 and 1994 in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Nagaland. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are attached to the office of the Executive Engineer, PHED, Mon District; petitioner No. 4 is attached to the office of the Executive Engineer, PHED, Kohima; and petitioner No. 8 is attached to the office of the Page No.# 4/5 Executive Engineer, PHED, Tuensang District.
4. The petitioners claim that, although they have been serving for more than 30 years as Work-Charged employees, the respondent authorities have failed to regularise their services in accordance with the Office Memorandum, which is a policy of the State Government for the regularisation of Work-Charged and Casual employees in scale pay who have completed or will complete 30 years of continuous service. Therefore, the petitioners pray that the respondent authorities be directed to regularise their services, as they have completed 30 years of service as Work-Charged employees in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015.
5. The respondent No. 4, i.e., the Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Nagaland, has filed an affidavit wherein it has been categorically stated that the services of some of the petitioners have already been regularised vide orders dated 18.03.2024 and 13.09.2024. As regards the petitioner No. 2, it has been stated that he joined service on 18.05.1997 and upon attaining the age of superannuation, he was released from service and since he had completed only 26 years of service, his service could not be regularised. In respect of the other petitioners, the process for regularisation of their services is stated to be under process in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015.
6. Considering that the services of some of the petitioners have already been regularised and the process for regularisation of the remaining petitioners, except the Page No.# 5/5 petitioner No. 2, is under consideration by the State authorities in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. It is, however, expected that the cases of the petitioners for regularisation shall be considered expeditiously by the respondent authorities in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant