SMTI. T. ZISELA SANGTAM AND 6 ORS v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-06-06. SMTI. T. ZISELA SANGTAM AND 6 ORS v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/4 GAHC020006202021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/324/2021 SMTI. T. ZISELA SANGTAM AND 6 ORS SWEEPER (AD-HOC), GHSS, KIPHERE, NAGALAND 2: SHRI. THSATHRONGCHUM PEON(AD-HOC) GHSS KIPHIRE NAGALAND 3: SHRI. Y. YANGKHABA SANGTAM LAB ATTENDANT (AD-HOC) GHSS KIPHIRE NAGALAND 4: SHRI. THRELIMONG SANGTAM MALI (AD-HOC) GHSS KIPHIRE NAGALAND 5: SHRI. T CHOPISE SANGTAM PEON (AD-HOC) GMS LONGYA KIPHIRE NAGALAND 6: SHRI. S. ALIBA SANGTAM PEON (AD-HOC) SDEO KIPHIRE NAGALAND 7: SHRI. T. SELIKYU SANGTAM MALI(AD-HOC) GMS Page No.
# 2/4 CHANGCHOR KIPHIRE NAGALAN VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, NAGALAND-KOHIMA 2:THE STATE OF NAGALAND THROUGH THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATON NAGALAND KOHIM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moa Jamir, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Inaholi Wotsa, Government Advocate BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 06. 06. 2024 Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Ms. Inaholi Wotsa, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioners herein who are the Grade-IV employees working on ad-hoc basis have filed the instant writ petition for consideration of their case in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 11. 08. 2016. 3.
It has been brought to the attention of this Court that on Page No. # 3/4 16. 03. 2024, an Office Memorandum has been issued by the Government of Nagaland, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms whereby a policy was taken on regularization of Group-C and Group-D Contract and Ad-hoc employees who were appointed prior to 06. 06. 2016. 4. Mr. Moa Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that as the Petitioners were appointed prior to 06. 06. 2016 on ad-hoc basis, their cases would be covered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 16. 03. 2024. He therefore submits that the case of the Petitioners now ought to be considered by the Respondent Authorities in terms with the said Office Memorandum dated 16. 03. 2024. He further submits that as the earlier Office Memorandums are no longer in existence, the Petitioners would not therefore like to press the instant writ petition.
The learned counsel submits that in the circumstance the Petitioners’ case is not considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 16. 03. 2024, the Petitioners should not be precluded from approaching this Court. 5. Taking into account the Office Memorandum dated 16. 03. 2024, this Court is of the opinion that the said Office Memorandum deals with cases like the Petitioners. Under such circumstances, this Court closes the instant writ petition on withdrawal. 6. However, it is made clear that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioners to approach this Court in the circumstance the Petitioners’ case Page No. # 4/4 is not considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 16. 03. 2024. 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.