Nagaland: RMSA 2016 batch teachers rejects mission director’s statement

DIMAPUR — The RMSA teachers of 2016 batch have rejected the recent appeal of the Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha Nagaland, to “have patience” and wait for the outcome of a review petition filed before the Supreme Court.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Nagaland RMSA Teachers’ Association (NRMSATA) 2016 batch stated that they have already shown “extraordinary patience,” having waited more than nine years for the government to extend service benefits that courts have upheld as legally due.

The association pointed out once again that Gauhati High Court, through a Division Bench judgement on March 16, 2022, had ruled in their favour, and the decision was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The judgement, it stated, had directed the government to release scale pay immediately; yet the order has not been implemented.

Also read: Nagaland RMSA 2016 teachers to continue indefinite pen-down strike

Adding to their plight, the teachers alleged that salaries have not been paid since April 2025, pushing many into financial distress. They claimed that the government’s decision to file a review petition was nothing more than an attempt to delay justice.

The association further clarified that they have not received any official notice from the Supreme Court regarding the review petition and that no stay order has been issued by either the High Court or the Supreme Court. “Therefore, the judgment in our favour remains valid, operative, and binding on the state government,” it asserted.

Read more: Supreme Court of India upholds high court ruling granting equal pay to RMSA teachers in Nagaland

Reiterating their demands, the teachers stated that they are entitled to the ROP 2017 pay scale with annual increments, recognition of service from the date of appointment in 2016, and parity with counterparts of the 2010–13 batch.

Describing the mission director’s remarks as “misleading and insensitive,” the teachers said the government must immediately implement the court’s rulings instead of “hiding behind review petitions.”