Shri. P. Noklau Phom v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Mar 2026WP(C)/245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization; Work-Charged Employees; Contingency Paid LDA; Village Guard Organization, Nagaland; Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004; District Level Recruitment Board; Longleng; resultant vacancy from demise of incumbent; direction to consider regularization within four months; writ petition disposed; Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench; WP(C)/245/2022; GAHC020006552022; 2026:GAU-NL:88; decided 02.03.2026; Justice Kardak Ete.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for regularization strictly in accordance with the policy/scheme for regularization of Work-Charged Employees vide Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶¶34

Shri. P. Noklau Phom Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities are duty-bound to consider/regularize the petitioner's service in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

The State of Nagaland has a policy and scheme for regularization of Work-Charged Employees, embodied in the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, providing regularization against available regular vacancies, a right to be considered first against 50% of future similar vacancies, and consideration on seniority-cum-merit subject to fitness.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as Contingency Paid LDA and has served since 2004; the State respondents did not deny his right to be considered for regularization in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 and undertook to consider his case when the District Level Recruitment Board sits for the Village Guard Organization.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner has served since 2004 and the State's regularization policy is in vogue, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for regularization strictly in accordance with the policy/scheme vide Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, within 4 (four) months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench — WP(C)/245/2022, decided 02.03.2026 (Kardak Ete, J.). A petitioner serving as Contingency Paid LDA under the Deputy Commissioner & Ex-Officio Deputy Commandant, Village Guard, Longleng since 19.02.2004 (fixed pay Rs. 750 per month, over 18 years of service) sought a direction for regularization in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, the State's policy/scheme for regularization of Work-Charged Employees (regularization against available regular vacancies; right to be considered first against 50% of future similar vacancies; seniority-cum-merit subject to fitness). His case forwarded on 28.09.2012 had been turned down vide letter dated 31.10.2012; a District Level Recruitment Board meeting for Longleng District (held 02.03.2022, approval sought 13.05.2022) covered only the District Administration, exclusive of the Village Guard Organization, leaving the vacancy arising from the demise of Late O. Nangba Phom unutilized; the State undertook to take up his case when the Board sits for the Village Guard Organization. Holding: the State having a subsisting regularization policy and not having denied the petitioner's right to consideration, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to consider his case for regularization strictly in accordance with the policy/scheme vide Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC020006552022

2026:GAU-NL:88

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/245/2022

¶6

SHRI. P. NOKLAU PHOM L.D.A(CONTINGENCY), V.G OFFICE LONGLENG

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND COMMANDANT GENERAL VILLAGE GUARD NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶10

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO COMMANDANT VILLAGE GUARD LONGLENG NAGALAND

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : N. LONGKUMER, XAVIOR KENT,NISUKA CHISHI

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL,

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

:::BEFORE:::

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶16

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.03.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

¶17

Judgment & Order(Oral)

¶18

Heard Mr. N. Chisi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Pichano, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶19

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize his service in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004.

¶20

3. Briefly put, the petitioner was initially appointed as paid LDA on contingency basis under the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner and Ex-Officio Deputy Commandant Village Guard, Longleng in a fixed pay of Rs. 750 per month w.e.f. 19.02.2004 and is serving on such capacity for the last 18 (eighteen) years.

¶21

4. The Deputy Commissioner & Ex-Officio Deputy Commandant, Village Guard, Longleng, forwarded the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service on 28.09.2012;

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

however, the same was turned down vide letter dated 31.10.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that a vacancy of LDA arose due to the demise of Late O. Nangba Phom, against which his service could be regularized in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004.

¶24

5. Mr. Chishi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since there exists a policy and scheme for regularization of the services of Work-Charged Employees, the respondent authorities are duty-bound to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service. It is contended that non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, despite the existence of a vacancy and the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 providing for such regularization, amounts to deprivation of his legitimate right to be considered. He therefore prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service against the resultant vacancy caused by the demise of Late O. Nangba Phom.

¶25

6. Ms. Pichano, learned Government Advocate, fairly submits that for Longleng District, a meeting of the District Level Recruitment Board for in-service regularization of employees under the Deputy Commissioner (District Administration) was held on 02.03.2022 and approval was sought on 13.05.2022. The said District Level Recruitment Board was specifically constituted for the District Administration, exclusive of the

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

Village Guard Organization, and as such, the case of the petitioner in respect of the resultant vacancy due to the demise of Late O. Nangba Phom was not taken up. However, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner shall be taken up as and when a sitting of the District Level Recruitment Board is conducted for the Village Guard Organization.

¶28

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶29

8. The State of Nagaland has a policy and scheme for regularization of the services of Work-Charged Employees and in that regard, the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 has been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. The said Office Memorandum, inter alia, provides that regularization of Work-Charged Employees shall be made against available regular vacancies and that such employees shall have the right to be considered first for regularization against 50% of all future vacancies of a similar nature in the Department for which they possess the requisite qualifications. Such regularization is to be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, meaning that the senior-most Work-Charged Employee in the relevant category shall be regularized subject to his/her fitness for the vacant post.

¶30

9. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Contingency Paid LDA and has been serving in the said

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

capacity since 2004. The State respondents have not denied the right of the petitioner to be considered for regularization of his service in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, rather have categorically stated that as and when a sitting of the District Level Recruitment Board is conducted for the Village Guard Organization, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with the policy/scheme of the State for regularization of Work-Charged Employees.

¶33

10. Considering that the petitioner was appointed as Contingency Paid LDA in the year 2004 and has been serving till date, and that the State has a policy/scheme for regularization of Work-Charged Employees which is stated to be in vogue, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service strictly in accordance with the policy/scheme for regularization of the services of Work-Charged Employees vide Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is ordered, accordingly.

¶34

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Shri. P. Noklau Phom v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. P. Noklau Phom v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subrata Sarkar Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Numaligarh Refinery Limited Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Kotosi Menda and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Smti. Myanbeni C. Ovung Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Mr. a. Neangba Konyak Vs State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Shri Mark M Humtsoe Vs State of Nagaland and 7 Ors.