Morung Express News
Kohima | April 6
The Gauhati Kohima Bench, on Friday, stated that it would be left with “with no option but to issue a warrant of arrest” against three Nagaland Government health officials if they continue to neglect the notification issued by the Court.
The officials are the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare; Principal Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare; and Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur, the respondents (contemnors) of an ongoing contempt petition.
The order issued by Justice Arun Dev Choudhury on April 5 stated that the contempt petition was filed against the respondents, alleging a “willful and deliberate violation” of a judgment order issued by the Court on April 4, 2023, in relation to a writ petition filed in 2021.
Notice to the alleged contemnors was issued by the Court in its order dated November 30, 2023, and later, the petitioner was tasked to take fresh steps through dasti service to serve the notice, ensuring that it reaches the respondents on March 21, 2024, it said.
While the petitioner had filed affidavit as proof of effecting the dasti service, the judge noted that when the matter was called for hearing on Friday, none of the alleged contemnors appeared either personally or through legal representation.
Accordingly, the Court said that it was left with no option but to issue a warrant of arrest against the respondents.
However, showing some leniency, Justice Choudhury requested the State Counsel to ascertain whether the three officials received the notice and take instruction as to whether they deliberately chose not to appear even after receiving the notice.
Listing the matter for further hearing on April 9, the judge noted that depending upon the nature of instruction, the Court will pass further orders.
As per the Court’s record, the case pertains to a writ petition filed by a medical attendant, serving in a sub-centre in Sangtamtilla, Dimapur, for the extension of her services.
In its judgment order on April 4, 2023, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be paid for the services rendered either by way of the “extension of her services which was last extended till 31.03.2017 up to the date her services have been utilised by the State respondents.”
The State respondents may also consider the re-appointment of the petitioner to the same post as per their Letter dated 08.03.2021, by applying the same yardstick as applied to a similarly situated person, it added. However, alleging violation of the April 4, 2023 order, the contempt petition was filed.
