Shri. Ruguozelie Paphino and 6 Ors v. The State of Nagaland and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 05.11.2024 Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Junior Government Advocate for the State respondent. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction inter-alia to the State respondents for creating 15 numbers of posts for Registry Establishment as per the Bagla Committee report of 2000. Page No.# 3/5 The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are all employees of the Nagaland State Consumer Commission and since inception of the Commission in 2011, no regular appointment has been made. It is the specific case of the petitioners that despite the Bagla Committee report of 2000 recommending to all states to have staff strength depending on the number of cases, no action has been taken by the State respondents till date. It is the further case of the petitioners that the committee recommended for having the Registry staff strength to be not less than 15 for the states with less than 500 cases. However, till date not even a single post has been created. Despite the 7 petitioners out of which most of them have been serving the Commission for years together, their services have not been regularized till date. Accordingly, representation has been filed for non-compliance and implementation of the Bagla Committee Report by creating post. However, the same having not been done till date, the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that it is imperative for the State respondents to implement the Bagla Committee report and non-implementation of the same has affected the Page No.# 4/5 petitioners irreparable. Ms. Inaholi, learned Junior Government Advocate for the State respondents, submits that in terms of the instruction received by letter dated 06.09.2024, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland has informed her office as regards constitution of the Manpower Rationalization Committee (MRC) by notification dated

02.09.2024 to examine the actual number of posts required for the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to start functioning and that the committee have scheduled their first meeting on 11.09.2024. Today, when the matter was called, she further places the instruction dated 08.10.2024 received from the under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, whereby her office has been informed that recommendation of the committee to recommend the actual number of posts required for State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to start functioning has been forwarded to the Chief Secretary on 05.10.2024. A copy of the aforesaid instruction dated

08.10.2024 is kept on record and marked as 'X'. Heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the material available on record. It appears that the grievance of the petitioners canvassed in the writ petition is the non-implementation of the Bagla Committee Report. Page No.# 5/5 It further appears from the instruction placed before this court, that the Manpower Rationalization Committee (MRC) has recommended constituting of a committee in order to examine the actual number of posts required for the State Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission to start functioning and the recommendation of the said committee has also been forwarded to the Chief Secretary for doing the needful. That being so, this court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of, in the interest of justice, by directing the State respondents to implement the Bagla Committee Report within a period of 3 (three) months from today in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC020002812022 2222222 222222222222222 2222222222222222THEkGAUHATIkHIGHkCOURT (HIGHkCOURTkOFkASSAM,kNAGALAND,kMIZORAMkANDkARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMAkBENCH CasekNo.k:kWP(C)/108/2022 SHRI.2RUGUOZELIE2PAPHINO2AND262ORS REGISTRAR2(ACTING),2OFFICE2OF2THE2STATE2CONSUMER2DISPUTES2 REDRESSAL2COMMISSION,2KOHIMA2NAGALAND 2:2SMTI.2 KHRIEKETOUNUO 2SWEEPER 2OFFICE2OF2THE2CONTROLLER2OF2LEGAL2METROLOGY2AND2CONSUMER2 PROTECTION 2KOHIMA2NAGALAND 3:2SHRI.2TEPUMEHO 2CHOWKIDAR 2OFFICE2OF2THE2STATE2CONSUMER2DISPUTES2REDRESSAL2COMMISSION2 KOHIMA 2NAGALAND 4:2SMTI.2NEIKHRIEVINO2JUA 2LDA2CUM2COMPUTER2ASSISTANT 2OFFICE2OF2THE2CONTROLLER2OF2LEGAL2METROLOGY2AND2CONSUMER2 PROTECTION 2KOHIMA2NAGALAND 5:2SMTI.2NOTHUVONO2KIN 2LDA2CUM2COMPUTER2ASSISTANT 2OFFICE2OF2THE2STATE2CONSUMER2DISPUTES2REDRESSAL2COMMISSION2 KOHIMA2NAGALAND 6:2SHRI.2TUITU2SWU 2PERSONAL2PEON 2OFFICE2OF2THE2STATE2CONSUMER2DISPUTES2REDRESSAL2COMMISSION2 KOHIMA2NAGALAND 7:2SHRI.2OBETO2CHISHI 2DRIVER 2OFFICE2OF2THE2STATE2CONSUMER2DISPUTES2REDRESSAL2COMMISSION2 Page No.# 2/5 KOHIMA NAGALAN VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : JOSHUA SHEQI, IMTONG KICHU,NAGALI SHOHE,CHINGMEI KONYAK,MIKA H AYE,ATOKA,TOSHIKA,A. ACHUMI,KEDI KOSO,P MHONBENI EZUNG,K LILY SWU Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI