NHIDCL pledges pothole-free on seven NH-2 locations by May 15
Moa Jamir
Dimapur | February 18
In a series of recent rulings, the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) has flagged the rejection and pendency of significant health insurance claims of hospital while the Supreme Court has affirmed the Nagaland Government’s MBBS quota policy.
The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) has also assured the GHCKB that 7 stretches of National Highway-2 will be made pothole-free May 15 while dozens of Primary Hindi teachers facing "premature" qualification deadlines were granted relief.
Over 3000 hospitals claims rejected
On February 11, a Division Bench of the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court (GHCKB) was informed that over 3,154 hospital claims had been rejected by Generali Central India Insurance Co. Ltd. (formerly Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited), while 2,226 bills remained pending. The company had served as the implementing agency for CMHIS and AB PM-JAY in Nagaland until March 2025.
Taking serious note of the large-scale rejection and pendency of claims, the Bench observed that such a “state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue unchecked” and directed the insurer to furnish reasons for the rejected and pending claims within a week, failing which its officials could be summoned for personal appearance.
When the matter was taken up again on February 18, counsel for the insurer sought permission to file its affidavit in soft copy via email, stating that it ran into 3,280 pages and detailed the claims cleared during the entire year of 2025.
Accordingly, the Division Bench of Justices Parthivjyoti Saikia and Yarenjungla Longkumer permitted the insurance company to submit its affidavit electronically. The Court had earlier called for such records on January 28.
Both issues are expected to be taken up on March 18, when the Court continues hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the withdrawal of services under the AB PM-JAY–CMHIS schemes by empanelled private hospitals in Nagaland over non-payment of dues in 2025.
NHIDCL updates Court NH-2 project
In a separate suo motu PIL concerning the Kohima–Mao Gate road project on NH-2, heard by the same Division Bench on February 11, a representative of NHIDCL informed the Court that repair work on the collapsed stretch had commenced and that seven damaged locations leading to Mao Gate would be made pothole-free by May 15.
He further submitted that a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for constructing a new road over the collapsed portion would be prepared and submitted by May 5, 2026.
Accordingly, the Division Bench directed NHIDCL to update the Court on March 18 regarding the status of the repair works and compliance with the assurance given.
MBBS quota dispute
Meanwhile, bringing legal finality to the issue of MBBS seat allocation under the Nagaland Government’s pool quota, the Supreme Court on February 10 dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Gauhati High Court’s October 23, 2025 judgment in WA No. 260/2025.
A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to interfere, stating that it was “not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s).”
In the October 23 ruling, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court had upheld the State’s September 9, 2021 notification governing Central Pool MBBS seats.
The Court held that the Central Pool operates through distinct and non-interchangeable quotas, and since wards of defence personnel are covered under a separate quota administered by the Union Ministry of Defence, they cannot claim eligibility under the State’s deficient-State quota meant to address the lack of medical infrastructure.
It further relied on a Union Government clarification and held that Clause 1.2.4 of the MoHFW guidelines does not permit Army personnel to be treated as local residents for the deficient-State quota.
This, the Court found the State’s notification neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, and set aside the earlier Single Judge order dated August 14, 2025 which quashed State’s Notification dated September 9, 2021.
The case arose after a medical aspirant, daughter of a serving Army officer posted in with the 1 Nagaland Battalion NCC in Kohima challenged the September 9, 2021 notification after she was denied admission under Nagaland’s Central Pool MBBS quota despite qualifying in NEET-UG.
Hindi teachers get partial relief
Meanwhile, granting partial relief to 78 Primary Hindi teachers, the GHCKB quashed State circulars that required them to submit proof of higher educational qualifications before the expiry of an extended compliance deadline.
In its February 16 judgment, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed that while the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 and NCTE norms mandate that in-service teachers acquire minimum qualifications—including Class 12 with 50% marks and a professional diploma—the State had already granted additional time for compliance.
A notification dated September 15, 2021 gave untrained teachers a five-year window (2022–2027) to obtain the required qualifications. However, circulars dated March 15 and August 26, 2023 directed teachers to submit qualification documents by April 6, 2023, well before the extended timeframe.
Holding such enforcement premature and contrary to the 2021 notification, the Court set aside the circulars and a related press release.
Nevertheless, it clarified that the teachers remain obligated to acquire the prescribed qualifications by 2027, as neither the 2021 notification nor the statutory mandate under the RTE Act was under challenge.
The Court also did not accept the plea to treat specialised Hindi diplomas as equivalent to D.El.Ed., ruling that such determination lies with the competent authority, not the judiciary.
Contingency worker get notional regularisation
On February 12, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer granted relief to a retired contingency employee appointed on compassionate grounds in 1994 following her husband’s death in service.
The Court noted that although ordinarily a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for regularisation in compassionate appointment cases, the present matter warranted special consideration.
The petitioner had served continuously for 30 years and retired on January 31, 2025, without her service being regularised.
The Bench observed that the State had extracted full service from her until superannuation while continuing her on contingency status, which it termed arbitrary and unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Court directed the State respondents to grant notional regularisation of her service solely for the purpose of extending pensionary and retiral benefits within three months from the date of the order.
However, it clarified that the relief was confined strictly to the petitioner’s case.
