Not a ‘Casual’ Matter

Moa Jamir

The issue of remuneration, regularization, and service conditions for work-charged, casual, adhoc, or contingency employees within various establishments under the Government of Nagaland has long been a matter of legal contention. Numerous litigations are currently pending before the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GKHCB), highlighting a systemic problem that needs immediate and consistent attention. 

The persistent appearance of such petitions in the court points to a governance failure, which the judiciary has had to intervene. The GKHCB, in its rulings, has frequently upheld the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work,’ a standard based on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh & Others (2016). These rulings have provided much-needed relief to workers who would otherwise continue to languish in an uncertain and disadvantaged position. The petitioners, many of whom approach the court as a last resort after being ignored or dismissed by the concerned authorities, represent a failure of the State Government to address these issues at the administrative level.

Policy-wise, the Nagaland Work-Charge and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001, is intended to govern this very issue. The Act defines casual employees as those engaged without a sanctioned post, while work-charged employees are those employed specifically under work-charged establishments, under a department. 

Among others, a Work-Charged and Casual Employees Commission was also established under the Act, tasked with recommending norms for the employment, wages, and service conditions of such workers. This Commission should, in theory, provide a structured framework for handling these employees. However, given the volume of ongoing litigation and complaints, one is left wondering whether the Commission is functioning effectively or if its recommendations are being implemented at all.

Another key document often cited in court hearings is the Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 17, 2015, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR), Nagaland, reportedly after a High Court judgement order and the report of the aforesaid committee.  This OM was meant to streamline the regularisation and absorption of work-charged and casual employees as well as Fixed Paid work-charged and causal/contingency employees and as well as revise their pay scales. 

Meanwhile, on June 11, the State Government informed the Court that a committee had been constituted by the Nagaland Government to explore various options and propose a suitable policy for regulating the remuneration and terms of service for contingency and fixed-pay employees. The Nagaland Government Advocate also submitted that the DPAR had issued a notification regarding this matter on February 16, 2024. Similar submissions were made by State respondents during other hearings, as they sought reprieve from the Court on the issue.

Most recently, on October 1, the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB), led by Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, noted the State Government's inconsistent approach to the issue. During the hearing, the Nagaland Advocate General orally informed the Bench that the committee had submitted its report on September 18 and handed it over to the Government for further action.

The recurrence of such issues also exposes a broader inconsistency in how the Nagaland Government deals with work-charged and casual employees and indicates that the government is either unable or unwilling to implement its own policies effectively. If a Commission and various OMs already exist to address these issues, why do so many employees still have to seek judicial relief? 

The answer lies in a lack of coherent and consistent governance, where policies are either poorly implemented or selectively applied. Outside the courtroom, one cannot help but question whether political connections or other external influences play a role in how these matters are handled.

However, this is not a ‘casual’ matter—thousands of workers' livelihoods are at stake. The State Government must act decisively, using the committee's report to implement fair and consistent policies. The time for action is long overdue.

For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com