Nagaland govt’s work-charged employee policy continues to face court scrutiny

Separate cases highlight regularisation and pension concernsMorung Express NewsDimapur | October 17Nagaland Government’s policy on long-serving work-charged employees in the State continues to face court scrutiny, with two recent proceedings highlighting the discriminatory denial of regularisation.In the latest development, the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) on October 15 gave the State government one last opportunity to act in the case of a retired fixed-pay work-charged labourer of PWD (Housing), Phek, cautioning that consequential orders would follow if the authorities failed to provide instructions.The court, hearing a contempt petition, noted that more than a year and three months had passed since its July 18, 2025 order, but no action had been initiated by the government.The employee had served for 35 years before retiring in May 2021 without pensionary benefits.In its July 2025 judgment, the court directed the State to regularise her service retrospectively from the day before superannuation, within four months, to enable her to receive pension and pensionary benefits.Questioning the distinction between work-charged employees receiving scale pay and those on fixed pay, the court observed that the authorities “had not clarified as to why the distinction was made” between the two categories in granting regularisation and consequential pensionary benefits.The contempt case has been listed for November 5, 2026.In a separate case, another retired work-charged employee who served the State for nearly 29 years and five months was denied regularisation despite at least four junior employees receiving the benefit.A Single Judge had ruled in favour of regularisation, a decision challenged by the State government.However, on November 7, 2025, the GHCKB Division Bench dismissed the State government’s appeal, endorsing the Single Judge’s observation that the employee, who had “spent best part of her life, giving service to the State”, “cannot be allowed to go empty handed after all these years of service”.“The State being a model employer cannot do such a thing to its own citizens,” the Division Bench added.The Division Bench also held that denying regularisation while junior employees had been regularised was discriminatory.The State subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which declined to entertain its Special Leave Petition on October 16. However, the apex court kept the question of law open and directed that the impugned order not be treated as a precedent.The latest developments also come against the backdrop of earlier rulings in which the GHCKB has reiterated the principle of “equal pay for equal work” in cases involving temporary and work-charged employees, including those performing duties similar to regular employees.