Covid-era health workers warn contempt action after Nagaland Cabinet puts Supreme Court–cleared regularisation of appointments on hold.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Joint Action Committee of Covid-era appointed healthcare workers on Sunday said that the Nagaland Cabinet’s decision to keep their regularisation “on hold” despite the Supreme Court allowing the regularisation to stand is legally untenable and warned that they would move contempt proceedings if the order is not revoked.
In a press release, the committee stated that the issue is “no longer an executive matter,” asserting that the regularisation process had already attained legal finality through governmental decision and judicial scrutiny.
The group said the affected workers had completed their joining process and that their appointments had already taken legal effect. It argued that any subsequent attempt to stall or suspend implementation through an executive hold order was “arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
“What has attained finality in law cannot be rendered uncertain or infructuous by administrative order,” the statement said.
Also read: Nagaland: Covid-era doctors say SC order gives finality to regularisation
The committee further claimed that wilful non-implementation or obstruction of a judicially settled issue could amount to contempt of court. It said continued inaction, delay or “indirect circumvention” through external pressures could expose authorities to contempt proceedings for deliberate disobedience of binding legal conclusions.
The health workers urged both the state government and the Naga Students’ Federation to resolve the matter strictly in accordance with law, stating that negotiations or engagements cannot override judicial discipline or dilute settled legal rights.
They warned that failure to revoke the hold order and implement the decision forthwith would compel them to initiate contempt proceedings, in addition to pursuing other legal remedies available under law.
The committee added that they may also resort to “lawful and democratic forms of protest” to safeguard their constitutional rights, professional dignity and livelihood.
“This matter has moved beyond policy debate. Now it is about respecting the law, upholding the Constitution, and ensuring that the government acts responsibly,” the statement said.