Division Bench affirms Supreme Court precedents and legislative intent under the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act 2001, overrules W.A. No. 27/2022 as per incurium, and holds that retrospective regularization for pension is available
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/3/2024 of SHRI PAOLAM Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS |
| CNR | GAHC020000402024 |
| Date of Registration | 12-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA; HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR |
| Court | Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts; authoritative on retrospective regularization for pension |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service law; administrative law; constitutional law (Articles 14 & 16) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Division Bench held that the legislative scheme under the Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act 2001 mandating State-drawn absorption schemes cannot be overridden by executive memoranda. A work-charged employee who served continuously for decades, like the petitioner, is entitled as a one-time measure to prospective regularization for pensionary benefits, drawing on Supreme Court rulings (Uma Devi, Prem Singh) that mandate regularization after ten years. Laches was held immaterial where no third-party prejudice arises. W.A. No. 27/2022 was declared per incurium for overlooking prior binding decisions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | The court applied the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to override procedural bars where no third‐party prejudice exists (Tukaram Kana Joshi; Shiv Das). It emphasized legislative intent of NWC Act 2001 to mandate absorption schemes, struck down executive OM 17/03/2015 to the extent it denied pension. It reaffirmed Uma Devi’s one‐time regularization after ten years and Prem Singh’s condemnation of exploitative long-term temporary engagement. W.A. No. 27/2022 was disregarded as per incurium for failing to follow Ramaswami and Ibobal Singh. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was appointed Work-Charged Khalasi on 23.05.1984 and served 35 years on fixed pay until retirement on 24.05.2019. Colleagues and juniors received scale-of-pay and regularization; the petitioner did not. He filed WP(C) 305/2021 under Articles 14 & 16 seeking retrospective regularization at Grade-IV pay scale for pension. The Single Judge dismissed, relying on OM 17/03/2015 eligibility criteria and Uma Devi. The Division Bench allowed intra-court appeal to the extent of pensionary regularization. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh on retrospective regularization for pension |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and benches of this Court on absorbing long-term work-charged employees for pension benefits |
| Overrules | W.A. No. 27/2022 (State of Nagaland & Others v. Shri Alemba) |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act 2001’s absorption scheme cannot be negated by executive memoranda.
- A one-time retrospective regularization for pensionary benefits is available to work-charged employees who served over ten years, even if not holding a sanctioned post.
- Inordinate delay or laches will not bar relief under Article 226 when no third party rights are affected.
- A coordinate bench decision rendered per incurium may be set aside if it overlooks prior binding decisions.
- Relief limited to pensionary benefits; no back wages for the pre-regularization period.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Delay and Laches: Petitioner’s 35-year continuous service and lack of third-party prejudice outweighed technical delay (Tukaram Kana Joshi; Shiv Das; Tarseem Singh).
- Legislative Intent: NWC Act 2001 mandates State-drawn absorption schemes; OM 17/03/2015 cannot override statutory scheme.
- Supreme Court Precedents: Uma Devi directs one-time regularization after ten years; Prem Singh condemns exploitative long-term temporary engagement and mandates counting qualifying service for pension.
- Per Incurium Coordinate Bench: W.A. No. 27/2022 overlooked Ramaswami and Ibobal Singh; declared per incurium and set aside.
- Equality and Non-Discrimination: Article 14 & 16 require similarly situated employees to receive similar treatment; petitioner denied what juniors received.
- Remedial Scope: Relief confined to prospective pensionary regularization; back wages excluded.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Legislative intent under NWC Act 2001 compels regularization of work-charged employees.
- OM 17/03/2015 hampering regularization is invalid as it overrides statute.
- Denial of scale-of-pay and pension to senior petitioner but granted to juniors violates Articles 14 & 16.
- Supreme Court precedents (Prem Singh; Ibobal Singh) mandate regularization and pension counting.
Respondents
- Petitioner was a temporary/fixed-pay employee on irregular appointment, not against a sanctioned post.
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi bars regularization of temporary workers.
- OM prohibits scale-of-pay claims for employees retired before 01.01.2020.
- W.A. No. 27/2022 Alemba, Nishevi Achumi, and Moirangninthou Singh decisions reject such claims.
Factual Background
Shri Paolam was appointed Work-Charged Khalasi in PHED, Phek Division on 23.05.1984 and served on fixed pay for 35 years until retirement on 24.05.2019. Colleagues and juniors received Grade-IV scale pay and regularization; he did not. He filed WP(C) 305/2021 alleging violation of Articles 14 & 16 and seeking retrospective regularization at lowest Grade-IV pay scale for pensionary benefits. The Single Judge dismissed relying on OM 17/03/2015 criteria and Uma Devi; the Division Bench allowed the intra-court appeal to grant pensionary regularization.
Statutory Analysis
- Nagaland Work-Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act 2001: empowers State Government to frame absorption schemes for work-charged employees.
- OM dated 17.03.2015: prescribes eligibility criteria for fixed-pay employees to get scale-of-pay and regularization (representation during service, sanctioned post); held subordinate to statutory scheme.
- Article 226: discretionary jurisdiction to grant equitable relief despite delay where substantial justice demands, and no third-party prejudice ensues.
Procedural Innovations
- Clear application of the per incurium doctrine to set aside a coordinate bench decision that overlooked binding precedent.
- Use of Article 226 discretion to grant one-time pensionary regularization without back wages.
- Direction to conduct a comparative enquiry of similarly situated employees for equitable relief.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules W.A. No. 27/2022 per incurium
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006 4 SCC 1); Prem Singh (2019 10 SCC 516)
- ⚖️ No Split Verdict
Citations
- GAHC020000402024 2025:GAU-NL:421-DB
- (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi)
- 2022 SCC Online SC 818 (State of Nagaland v. Nishevi Achumi)
- (2007) 10 SCC 544 (State of Manipur v. KSH Moirangninthou Singh)
- (2019) 10 SCC 516 (Prem Singh v. State of U.P.)
- Jaggo v. Union of India & Others, 2024 SCC Online 3826
- 1997 (2) GLT 209 (State of Manipur v. KSH Ibobal Singh)
- W.A. 12(K)/2009 Ramaswami, 22.02.2011
- W.A. 22(K)/2013 Tecatemjen Ao v. State of Nagaland, 2014 (5) GLT 729