Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/220/2025 of SHRI S. ALEMBA SANGTAM Vs STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS on 21 September 2026
GAHC020007182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/220/2025 SHRI S. ALEMBA SANGTAM W/C KHALASI, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED, TUENSANG DIVISION, TUENSANG NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE
GAHC020007182025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : WP(C)/220/2025
SHRI S. ALEMBA SANGTAM
W/C KHALASI, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED, TUENSANG DIVISION, TUENSANG NAGALAND
VERSUS
STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA
2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
DEPT. OF PHED
NAGALAND KOHIMA
3:COMMISSINER AND SECRETARY
GOVT. OF NAGALAND
DEPT. OF P AND AR
NAGALAND KOHIMA
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PHED NAGALAND KOHIMA
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
TUENSANG DIVISION
TUENSANG NAGALAN
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. K. Imchen, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Chang, Govt. Advocate BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 22.09.2026
Heard Ms. K. Imchen, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. The petitioner herein was appointed on 10.05.1993 as a Work-Charged Skilled Labour. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.07.1994, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Fitter Helper in the scale of pay. The petitioner completed 30 years of service on 10.05.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner was released from service on 30.09.2023 upon attaining the age of 60 years.
3. The case of the petitioner herein is that as the petitioner was employed as a Work-Charged employee and was also in the scale of pay, the petitioner is entitled to be considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 after having completed 30 years of service on 10.05.2023.
4. It is on account of the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the said affidavit-in- opposition being relevant, are reproduced hereinunder: “2. That by the Hon'ble Court Order dated 25.06.2026 directed the State respondents to place the up-to-date instructions by way of an affidavit. As such, in compliance, letter dated 26.05.2026 is annexed herewith, wherein the petitioner name is indicated at serial No.27 under Tuensang Division. That the Finance on 17.03.2026 gave its concurrence for regularization subject to the recommendation by Manpower Rationalization Committee and Cabinet approval, wherein the name of the petitioner is indicated at Serial No.35. That at present, the case of the petitioner along with similar situated are being complied to be submitted to MRC.
3. That the deponent humbly begs to state that the process for regularization of Work Charged Employees it has to undergo certain stages i.e. P & AR Clearance, finance clearance, MRC and cabinet approval. Therefore, due to the lengthy procedures the process could not be completed. Hence, the petitioner's case will be considered as and when those laid down procedures are completed.”
6. From a perusal of the above quoted paragraphs along with the enclosures to the affidavit-in- opposition, it is seen that the proposal for regularization has already been examined by the
Finance Department and has been concurred with by the Finance Department, subject to the recommendation of the Manpower Rationalization Committee as well as the approval of the Cabinet.
7. Considering the stand taken by the respondents, it is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent Authorities are presently taking appropriate steps for regularization of the petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015.
8. Accordingly, this Court closes the instant writ petition with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to complete the said process at the earliest, inasmuch as the petitioner has already retired in the year 2023.
9. With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant