Disposed

Mrs. Hesheni Sumi v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2026WP(C)/55/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temporary sweeper challenged a termination notice issued after earlier litigation securing her pay scale. The termination notice was revoked by the Deputy Commissioner before final hearing, so the cause of action no longer survived and the Court closed the petition, leaving liberty to approach it again.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs. Hesheni Sumi Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC020002562026

2026:GAU-NL:334

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/55/2026

¶6

MRS. HESHENI SUMI W/O KUGHAZHE KIBA, R/O KHUTOVI VILLAGE, NIULAND, NAGALAND

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE HOME COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY/SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT - NIULAND NAGALAN

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : A. ZHIMOMI, LELIMTHONG P YIMCHUNGER,KUPUTOLI SEMA,TOIKA A YEPTHOMI,VITO K SHOHE,G KAMEI,LHOUSINO,ESTHER

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL,

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶14

Advocates

¶15

For the petitioner : Esther For the respondents : V. Suokhrie, Addl. AG, Nagaland

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

04.06.2026

¶18

Heard Ms. Esther, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional AG, Nagaland, who appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sweeper in the Office of the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Aghunaqa, under the establishment of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Niuland, Nagaland vide an order dated 08.08.2012. The petitioner further claims that the petitioner had been discharging her duties with sincerity and dedication. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming that she should be granted minimum pay scale in the scale of pay allowed to a Sweeper along with arrears from the date of filing of the writ petition. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C)/228(K)/2019. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 14.06.2022 thereby granting relief to the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to the minimum pay scale in the scale of pay allowed to a Sweeper along with arrears from the date of filing of the writ petition.

¶20

Page No.# 3/6

¶21

An appeal there against was filed by the State which was registered and numbered as WA/25/2022. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide a detailed judgment and order dated 20.01.2023 held that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs as was sought was granted by the order dated 14.06.2022, passed in WP(C)/228(K)/2019 and thereby directed the respondent authorities to comply with the said order within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of passing of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2023.

¶22

The State respondents, thereupon preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court which was registered and numbered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 25185/2023. By an order dated 11.12.2023, the Supreme Court directed the State respondents to implement the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14.06.2022. Subsequently, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 20.02.2024 with observations that as the order passed by the High Court had been complied with and in addition, as per the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the State, which was taken on record, the Government was taking its own policy decision, the SLP was disposed of.

¶23

It is the further case of the petitioner that in pursuance thereto, the respondent authorities had taken a vindictive attitude towards the petitioner and as such have issued the impugned Office Notice dated 31.03.2026 whereby the service of the petitioner was to be terminated on expiry of one month from the issuance of the said notice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this very aspect of the matter is very much apparent from the impugned Notice of

¶24

Page No.# 4/6

¶25

Termination. She further submits that against no other employee such steps have been taken.

¶26

Be that as it may it is relevant to take note of that when the writ petition was listed before this Court on 27.04.2026, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 27.04.2026, while issuing notice stayed the impugned Notice of Termination dated 31.03.2026. The writ petition thereupon was listed on 26.05.2026, when the learned Additional AG, Nagaland submitted that the reference so made to the WP(C)/228(K)/2019 in the impugned Notice of Termination may not have been proper. However, she submitted that she would obtain instructions in that regard.

¶27

The record further reveals that the matter came up before this Court on 29.05.2026 when the learned Additional AG further submitted that the respondent authorities were contemplating on withdrawing the Notice of Termination dated 31.03.2026.

¶28

Today when the matter is being listed, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional AG submitted that by the order dated 01.06.2026, the Notice of Termination dated 31.03.2026 have been revoked with immediate effect. A copy of the said Order dated 01.06.2026 was placed before this Court, which is kept on record and marked with the letter-X. This Court finds it very pertinent to reproduce the contents of the Order dated 01.06.2026, issued by the Deputy Commissioner Nagaland. The same is reproduced herein under:

¶29

“ GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶30

Page No.# 5/6

¶31

NIULAND: NAGALAND Email:[email protected]

¶32

NO.DCN/EST-46/TRMN/2025/ Niuland, dated the 1^st June, 2026

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

WHEREAS, vide this Office Notice NO.DCN/EST-46/TRMN/2025/342, dated 31.03.2025, the service of Smti. Hesheni Sumi appointed of a temporary basis as Sweeper vide appointment order NO.NL/ESTT/10/ADMN/2008/68, dated 08.08.2012, was to be terminated on expiry of one month from the date of issue of the said Notice.

¶35

AND WHEREAS, on further scrutiny of the termination Notice, it has been found that reference to 'WP(C) No.228 (K) 2019, State of Nagaland and Ors-VsSmti. Hesheni Sumi’ has been inadvertently and wrongly recorded in the Notice No. DCN/EST-46/TRMN/2025/342, dated 31.03.2026 issued by this Office.

¶36

NOW, THEREFORE, the termination Notice No.DCN/EST-46/TRMN/2025/342, dated 31.03.2026 is hereby revoked with immediate effect.

¶37

Issued under my hand and seal on this 1st day of June, 2026.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(T.L. KIUSUMONG TIKHIR) NCS Deputy Commissioner Niuland: Nagaland.

¶40

NO.DCN/EST-46/TRMN/2025/569 Niuland, dated the June, 2026

¶41

Copy to:

¶42

The Commissioner, Nagaland Kohima for kind information.

¶43

The Secretary, P & AR Administrative Reforms Branch for kind information.

¶44

Smti. Hesheni Sumi, MTS for information and necessary action.

¶45

The Accounts Branch, DC office Niuland for information and necessary action.

¶46

Office copy.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

Deputy Commissioner Niuland: Nagaland.”

¶49

From the above it is, therefore, seen that the very cause of action for

¶50

Page No.# 6/6

¶51

filing the instant writ petition no longer survives inasmuch as the Notice of Termination dated 31.03.2026 had been revoked vide the order dated 01.06.2026. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, closes the instant writ petition.

¶52

10.Before parting with the records this Court further observes that the closure of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner to again approach this Court, if any action is being taken by the respondent authorities in future. Similarly, the instant order shall not prejudice the respondents to take any action against the petitioner, if it is otherwise permissible under law.

¶53

11.This Court would also like to observe that the State being a Welfare State it is expected that the State of Nagaland would act as a model employer and in a magnanimous manner in so far as the petitioner is concerned as the petitioner is a Grade-IV employee, that too still in the capacity of a temporary employee.

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Comparing Assistant

Mrs. Hesheni Sumi v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs. Hesheni Sumi 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

Smti. Lolano John Ngullie Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Moalong Sangtam Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Akumlong Jamir Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Angami Women Cooperative Joint Farming Society, Dimapur Vs Shri R. Temjen and 9 Ors.

Shri Longtise Y. Sangtam, Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Angami Women Cooperative Joint Farming Society, Dimapur Vs Shri Kezhagwetuo Peseyie and 9 Ors.