Morung Legal Digest: Kohima Bench rules on PWD salaries and landownership-based appointment claims

Morung Express News
Dimapur | November 8

The Gauhati High Court’s Kohima Bench this week delivered judgments on PWD fixed-labour workers’ salary claims, regularisation of contractual employees at the Central Institute of Horticulture (CIH), and appointments to Medical Attendant posts. 

In a separate CBI case, it set aside a discharge order involving alleged illegal gratification of in Army ration procurement.

PWD workers backlog salaries issue 
In a common judgment dated November 2, Justice Robin Phukan dismissed two writ petitions filed by 548 work-charged fixed-labour employees of the PWD (Roads and Bridges), seeking backlog salaries withheld from March 2020.

The petitioners, comprising of 450 from Peren district and 98 from Tuli Division, Mokokchung, were among 1,309 employees whose termination was approved by the State Cabinet on September 11, 2024, following departmental verification. 

The exercise detected anomalies, including missing appointment orders and discrepancies in employee details. The 548 petitioners were placed in Sub-category ‘N’, covering appointments considered doubtful or potentially bogus.

They had been directed not to report for duty pending verification through an Office Memorandum dated August 21, 2021, and were terminated by a notification dated November 6, 2024.

The Court noted that only two petitioners produced documents supporting their appointments, but these were replacement orders or internal arrangements and did not establish valid appointments.
On unpaid salaries, the Court held that ‘No Work, No Pay’ did not apply because the authorities themselves had prevented the petitioners from working during the enquiry. 

However, the Court observed that once the appointments of the petitioners are found to be bogus and contrary to their service record, it becomes void ab initio (from beginning) and “there was never a valid right to be on duty or to receive salary.” Citing State of Bihar & Ors. v Devendra Sharma, the Court held that entitlement to salary and service benefits arises from a valid appointment.

CIH regularisation upheld
A Division Bench comprising Justices Yarenjungla Longkumer and Helen Dawngliani,  on November 6, dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India and other authorities challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing regularisation of four contractual employees at CIH, Medziphema.

The CAT had directed regularisation of two Field Assistants and two Stenographers against sanctioned posts, with consequential benefits, within three months. The High Court challenge was confined to one Stenographer.

The Bench observed that CIH had engaged her for 17 years, initially in different capacities and subsequently against a sanctioned post from November 1, 2019. As a State instrumentality, the institute was expected to act as a fair and model employer and could not mechanically invoke the 10-year requirement in Secretary, State of Karnataka v Uma Devi to deny regularisation after prolonged engagement.

Finding no error warranting interference under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, the Bench upheld the CAT order. It clarified that the employee’s seniority in the Stenographer grade would count only from November 1, 2019.

Medical Attendant appointments quashed
In two judgments dated November 2, Justice Robin Phukan rejected claims for appointment to Medical Attendant posts at Kejok Sub-Centre in Tuensang and Sungro Primary Health Centre (PHC) in Wokha on landownership grounds, but quashed the appointments made to both facilities for failure to follow transparent recruitment procedures.

In the Kejok case, the petitioner claimed that his father had donated the land for the Sub-Centre and that he should be considered for appointment following his father’s retirement. The Court accepted the State’s position that the father had already received employment on landownership basis. Referring to the Government’s March 5, 2018 notification, it held that the benefit was limited to the person first appointed and did not extend to descendants.

In the Sungro case, the petitioner sought appointment on the recommendation of the landowners who donated land for the PHC. The Court noted the State’s submission that nine Grade IV employees had already been appointed there on landownership basis and rejected his claim.

While two other candidates were appointed to the respective posts, both appointments were found to have violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as no vacancy had been publicly advertised, nor had a selection committee been constituted or interviews conducted. 

In the Sungro case, the State had also failed to explain why the vacancy could not be advertised or demonstrate that a fair and transparent alternative selection process had been followed.

The Court quashed both appointments and directed fresh recruitment under applicable government Office Memorandums. The petitioners and existing appointees may participate, subject to eligibility and suitability; neither petitioner was granted an automatic right to appointment.

CBI discharge order set aside
In a judgment dated November 5, Justice Helen Dawngliani set aside a discharge order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dimapur, involving an Army officer and his brother.

The case concerns allegations of conspiracy, cheating and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the procurement of fresh and dry rations for Army personnel in Nagaland between July 2012 and September 2016. The alleged illegal gratification was approximately Rs 82 lakh.

The High Court found that the Special Judge’s November 18, 2024 order had focused primarily on whether a Rs 10 lakh transfer was a friendly loan or illegal gratification, without separately examining the material relating to each alleged offence.

The matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the discharge application within two months. The High Court did not determine the accused persons’ guilt or innocence.