AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Thangkhiew, J
Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the averments made in the sub-para of paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, the writ petition can be disposed of, inasmuch as, the matter is under active consideration by the State respondents. For the sake of convenience, the said sub-para is reproduced hereinbelow:
“The Petitioner was appointed on 06-12-1991, prior to the cut-off date 31-12-2007 fixed under the Govt. Policy for one-time regularisation. Earlier in the year 2024 proposal for his regularisation by the personnel Department from the Administrative Department (Health & Family Welfare). However, on examination, it was found that relevant document pertaining to the proposal was not submitted, and Health Department was asked to furnish the relevant document for further examination. Consequently, Personnel & A.R. (B) Department has just received the proposal for his regularisation in March, 2025, which will have to be examined again by the Department.”
Mr. S.A.Sheikh, learned GA also concurs to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and does not object to the closing of the writ petition at this stage.
However, Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that with regard to other entitlements, the same may also be examined in conjunction with the process of regularisation of the writ petitioner.
Accordingly, in view of the submissions and the statements made on affidavit by the State respondents, the writ petition is closed with the direction that the respondents consider the case of the writ petition expeditiously for entitlement of pension and other service benefits including terminal benefits as permissible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order.
Matter accordingly stands closed and disposed of.