Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5685 (GAU)

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS v. SHRI AGWENYE MAGH

I.A.(Civil)/77/2026 · 2026-05-06

Kalyan Rai Surana

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020003062026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/77/2026 THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE THEN CHIEF SECRETARY OT THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND 2: THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND P AND AR DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA - 797001 3: THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA - 797001 4: THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA - 797001 5: THE SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA - 797001 6: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA - 79700 VERSUS SHRI AGWENYE MAGH KHALASI (W/C), OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHED), KOHIMA RURAL DIVISION, KOHIMA - 797001 Advocate for the Petitioner : E THIBA PHOM, Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER 07.05.2026 Heard Mr. Justin Magh, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent submits that the writ petition in WP(C) No. 187/2023 has been disposed of by order dated 20.01.2026. The learned Senior Government Advocate submits that pursuant to the order of this Court, the case of the petitioner has been examined for regularization and the same is presently under process. It is submitted that the process involves clearance from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, followed by finance clearance, thereafter clearance from the Manpower Rationalization Committee and thereafter the matter is placed before the Cabinet for approval. It is further submitted that although this Court had directed completion of the process within 3 (three) months from the date of judgment, the entire exercise may take approximately 6 (six) months from the stage of implementation of the order. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that till such time as the respondent authorities are considering the petitioner’s application, there is no objection to the prayer for extension of time. Page No.# 3/3 In view of the submission that the case of the petitioner is under consideration for regularization and taking into account the time required for completion of the process, 6 (six) months’ time is granted, expiring on 30.09.2026, as prayed for. It is expected that within the extended time granted, the needful shall be done. This Interlocutory Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant