Moa Jamir
Dimapur | February 9
Despite sharp scrutiny from the Court and repeated assurances by the Nagaland State Government, a consistent policy and concrete action on compensation and service status for work-charged, contingency, and other related employees still seem elusive.
This is apparent from the latest order issued on February 7 after a hearing at the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) concerning compensation and the status of work for non-regular employees under the Nagaland Government.
On Friday, Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak once again directed the Nagaland Government to submit an up-to-date status and decision taken by the six-member committee addressing the pay and service conditions of work-charged and contingency employees.
The committee, as per the Court’s records, was constituted via a notification by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch) on February 16, 2024.
Listing the matter for further hearing on March 6, Justice Pathak directed the Nagaland Chief Secretary to apprise the Court on the issue.
The latest directive comes amid prolonged and several litigation over disparities in pay scales among different categories of government employees, with the Court repeatedly questioning inconsistent policies and asking the State Government for clarity on the issue.
Repeated assurances
For instance, on October 1, 2024, leading the Division Bench, Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi questioned the Advocate General (AG) of Nagaland, highlighting stark inconsistencies in pay scales.
He also demanded clarity, implying the need for fairness in addressing the issue by the State Government.
Also in the bench, Justice Manish Choudhury also noted the existence of various categories of employees engaged under different terms, including contingency, work-charged, casual, and other temporary arrangements.
Some are given scale of pay from the date of appointment, some after five years of service, some after ten or fifteen years, while others are not granted pay scales even after thirty years, he observed.
“There is no consistent practice or convention, nor is there a scheme,” he added.
In response, the AG Nagaland then orally submitted before the Bench that the committee formed by the State Government to address the issue had completed its proceedings on September 18 and would submit its report to the government.
The issue pertains to various individuals, not only those on contingency, with the total strength coming to around 35,000 employees, the AG highlighted. He also acknowledged that litigation has multiplied over the issue, prompting the State Government to pursue a comprehensive policy.
Earlier, on June 11, the Nagaland Government Advocate also informed a single-judge bench that the committee had been constituted by the Nagaland Government to work on various options and suggest a suitable policy for regulating remuneration and terms of service for contingency and fixed-pay employees.
There are other cases where the constitution of the committee has been mentioned while seeking extensions and reprieves from the Court on the matter.
Meanwhile, on February 7, Justice Pathak also reminded that the Supreme Court, in a subsequent order on September 24, 2024, dismissed the State’s Special Leave Petition challenging a ruling by the GHCKB upholding the directive for State authorities to grant a minimum scale of pay to a contingency sweeper working on a fixed pay, on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
As per the February 7 order, the six-member committee comprises the Principal Secretary, PHED as the Chairman, with representatives from (ii) the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland; (iii) Law and Justice Department; (iv) Finance Department; (v) Home Department; and (vi) P&AR Department.
The representative of the P&AR Department is the Member Secretary of the said Committee.
Related matter
In a separate case concerning a petition for pension and pensionary benefits of a work-charged labourer, the Court noted that despite granting time on nine occasions, the State respondents had neither filed their affidavits nor paid the petitioner’s rightful pension as per Court orders dated 05.05.2022 and 26.09.2022.
The Court observed that the State respondents were wilfully disregarding its orders and depriving the petitioner of her legitimate claim. It also noted instances of misrepresentation before the Court.
As a result, the GHCKB directed that if the necessary compliance order regarding pension and pensionary benefits is not submitted by March 3, the Commissioner and Secretary, NPWD (Housing), and the Chief Engineer, NPWD (Housing), must appear in person before the Court and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for wilful disobedience.
