Disposed

Dr. Vijoho Sakhrie and 8 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Feb 2024Review.Pet./2/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical officers sought review of a judgment that declined regularization relief, citing a new Cabinet policy decision to regularize contract/adhoc employees with ten years' service. The court found no ground for review, noting the respondents could apply the Cabinet decision if petitioners qualified, and disposed of the review petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Vijoho Sakhrie and 8 Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC020000672024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./2/2024

¶5

DR. VIJOHO SAKHRIE AND 8 ORS MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR), PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, JAKHAMA

¶6

2: DR. HOLIBA ANAR MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) DISTRICT HOSPITAL KIPHIRE

¶7

3: DR. RUOKUOZOTUO MEZHU MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) DISTRICT HOSPITAL PHEK

¶8

4: DR. NUTALU SWORO MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER KHUZA

¶9

5: DR. RUKUTO TETSEO MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE PEREN

¶10

6: DR. ROSEMARY SEMA MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE NUILAND

¶11

7: DR. MHANJAN KIKON MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR) PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE ENGLAN.

¶12

8: DR. SUNGTIKUMBA I IMCHEN MEDICAL OFFICER (DOCTOR)

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

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

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 16-02-2024

¶20

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 respondents.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4 Considering the ground raised in the instant petition, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 dispensation 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.

¶24

Be stated herein, petitioners have approached this Court through W.P.(C) 70/2023 with 2 specific prayers:-

¶25

Top set aside and quash the impugned Agenda No.1(F) of the Cabinet decision dated 23/6/2020

¶26

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.

¶27

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 regularization 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Vijoho Sakhrie and 8 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Vijoho Sakhrie and 8 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marsanen Ozukum and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Teyong Dong Nok Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Dr. Vijoho Sakhrie and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Marsanen Ozukum and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Shri Thongpang Phom, Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Shri M. Chuba Phom, Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.