Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/139/2026 of THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS Vs SHRI YANGCHOPI on 13 August 2026
GAHC020004962026 2026:GAU-NL:432 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/139/2026 THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND 2: THE COMMISSIONER
GAHC020004962026
2026:GAU-NL:432
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/139/2026
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND
2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
PHED DEPARTMENT
NAGALAND
KIPHIRE
3: THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PHED DEPARTMENT
NAGALAND
KIPHIRE
4: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHED
KIPHIRE
NAGALAN
VERSUS
SHRI YANGCHOPI
W/C KHALASI (RETD.), R/O YINGSHUKUR VILLAGE, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : GOVT ADV NL, Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
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 : 14-08-2026
1. Heard learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. E. Thiba Phom, for the applicants/State of Nagaland.
2. This application is filed by the State with a prayer for extension of the period for compliance of the order of this Court in connection with WP(C)/105/2025, whereby, this Court vide order dated 21.11.2025 directed the applicants to consider the case of the petitioner of WP(C)/105/2025, for his regularization w.e.f 01/01/2016, in terms of the OM dated 17/03/2015, which would entitle the petitioner for pension. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of 6 (six) months.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Advocate that the petitioner’s case along with the similarly situated workcharged employees have been forwarded to the higher authority for consideration on 19.04.2021. It is submitted that the process of regularization of workcharged employees had to go through certain stages as per the OM dated 17.03.2015. It is further submitted that after obtaining clearance from the P&AR department on 06.07.2022, the case has been forwarded to the Finance department for clearance. The file, however, was turned down on certain queries and the department was requested to clarify on what provision the 83 fixed paid workcharged employees were granted scale of pay, wherein the petitioner’s name is also reflected.
4. The department, thereafter, re-submitted the clarification to the Finance Department on 26.02.2026 for its concurrence. It is submitted that now the case is under compilation, to be submitted before the Man Power Rationalization Committee (MRC for short) for recommendation/clearance and Cabinet for final approval.
5. It is submitted that there were no laches on the part of the applicants/Government of Nagaland in complying with the order of this Court dated 21.11.2025, in terms with the OM dated 17.03.2015. The applicants have prayed for extension of a period of another 6 (six) months to complete the entire process, in complying with the order of this Court dated 21.11.2025 in WP(C)/105/2025.
6. Learned counsel, Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, is present for writ petitioner/respondent and has raised serious objections stating that the entire procedure is being procrastinated by the Government negligently and the applicants have not complied with the order of this Court. He further submits that if further period of 6 (six) months is extended, the writ petitioner will be highly prejudiced, as the case has been pending for a considerable period of time.
7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.
8. The applicants have indeed proceeded with the case of the writ petitioner as per the direction of this Court. I have considered the submission that the entire process will be completed and the applicants have not been negligent. The process is at the last stage, which may be concluded within a period of 4 (four) months.
9. Therefore, instead of extending the period for another 6 (six) months, the applicants are granted another 4 (four) months time to consider the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C)/105/2025, without any further delay.
10. In view of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant