DR. VIJOHO SAKHRIE AND 8 ORS v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-02-16. DR. VIJOHO SAKHRIE AND 8 ORS v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/4 GAHC020000672024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Review. Pet. /2/2024 DR. VIJOHO SAKHRIE AND 8 ORS MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR), PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, JAKHAMA 2: DR. HOLIBA ANAR MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) DISTRICT HOSPITAL KIPHIRE 3: DR. RUOKUOZOTUO MEZHU MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) DISTRICT HOSPITAL PHEK 4: DR. NUTALU SWORO MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER KHUZA 5: DR. RUKUTO TETSEO MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE PEREN 6: DR. ROSEMARY SEMA MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE NUILAND 7: DR. MHANJAN KIKON MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE ENGLAN. 8: DR. SUNGTIKUMBA I IMCHEN MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) Page No. # 2/4 PARAMEDICAL TRAINING INSTITUTE KOHIMA 9: DR.
KEZHALETUO KIRE MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) PARAMEDICAL TRAINING INSTITUTE KOHIM VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM (P AND AR) NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAALAND KOHIMA 4:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 16-02-2024 Heard Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aliba Ozukum, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned State counsel for the State respon-dents. Page No. # 3/4 Considering the ground raised in the instant petition, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage.
By filing this review petition the petitioner seeks review of the judgment and order dated 13/2/2024 passed by this Court in W. P. (C) 70/2023 whereby this Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioners as was prayed for. Claiming that there is a subsequent development in view of the Cabinet decision taken on 8/2/2024 and circulated on 12/2/2024, the petitioners have filed this instant review petition. Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned senior counsel submits that as per the agenda No. 6 of the Cabinet meeting minutes dated 8/2/2024, the Cabinet has taken a policy decision to regularize the services of contract/adhoc employees as one time dispensa-tion for all categories of employees appointed prior to 6/6/2012 against sanctioned post who have completed 10 years of service and above.
The learned senior counsel submits that the review petitioners falls in this category and unless the judgment and order passed by this Court on 13/2/2024 is recalled, the petitioners may not have the opportunity to be considered as per the Cabinet decision. Be stated herein, petitioners have approached this Court through W. P. (C) 70/2023 with 2 specific prayers:- 1. Top set aside and quash the impugned Agenda No. 1(F) of the Cabinet decision dated 23/6/2020 2. To direct the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioners in terms of the Agenda No. 1(7) of the Cabinet decision dated 11/6/2020. Page No. # 4/4 However, this Court upon considering the materials available on record declined to grant relief to the writ petitioners as was prayed for. Considering the same, this Court is of the considered view that no grounds for review has been made out by the petitioners.
In other words, the Cabinet has taken a decision on its own to grant the benefit of regulariza-tion to contract employees working on sanctioned post for a period of 10 years prior to 6/6/2016. If the review petitioners falls in that category it is entirely up to the respondent authorities concerned to grant them such relief. In view of above, this Court sees no reason to review the judgment and accordingly, the review petition stands disposed of in terms of the observation made herein above. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.