Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) – Kohima Bench

Order Date: 13 November 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Shri Mika H. Aye, Lower Division Assistant cum Computer Assistant, Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Mangkolemba Division, Mokokchung, Nagaland.
  • Respondents: The State of Nagaland and two others represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Nagaland Public Works Department (NPWD), Kohima; the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, Kohima; the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Mangkolemba Division, Mokokchung.
  • Legal Basis: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Case No. WP(C)/113/2026) seeking direction to release salary arrears from April 2024 and to set aside a communication dated 12 September 2024 issued by the Engineer‑in‑Chief, NPWD.
  • Background: The petitioner was arrested on 27 December 2023 in connection with Chozuba Police Station Case No. 016/2023, registered under Sections 384, 506, 457 IPC read with Section 251B of the Arms Act. He was released on bail on 4 March 2024. The criminal case has been charge‑sheeted and is pending trial before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Phek, Nagaland.
  • Service Resumption: After bail, the petitioner resumed duty in April 2024 and has been performing his official duties regularly.
  • Communication Challenged: On 12 September 2024, the Engineer‑in‑Chief, NPWD, issued a notice stating that the petitioner’s salary could be considered only upon production of an acquittal order from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phek.
  • Respondents’ Position: They admitted the pendency of the criminal case and issuance of the communication but did not dispute the petitioner’s resumption of duty. They did not produce any suspension order or any other service‑rule order authorising salary withholding.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a government employee from receiving salary when he is performing duties.
  • The communication dated 12 September 2024 requiring an acquittal order as a pre‑condition for salary release is set aside.
  • The Respondents are directed to verify the petitioner’s service and attendance records from April 2024 onward, ascertain the periods he actually discharged duties, and release his monthly salary with effect from December 2026.
  • The Respondents must also release admissible arrears for the period the petitioner performed duties, subject to lawful deductions, if any.
  • The entire verification and payment of admissible arrears must be completed within five (5) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
  • The writ petition is disposed of.

Topics: Employment Law, Salary Dispute