Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020006162023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/259/2023 SHRI LONGSHITHUNG LOTHA RETIRED INSPECTOR (NPTO) COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE DIMAPUR, NAGALAND. PERMANENT ADDRESS- LAKHUTI VILLAGE, WOKHA NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE HOME COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DIMAPUR NAGALAND 5:THE COMMANDANT 14TH NAP (IR) KIPHIRE NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : S. TEMJEN, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 08.09.2025 Page No.# 2/8 Heard Mr. S. Temjen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has raised a grievance that, on examining his pay entitlements, he has detected less drawing of his salary for the last 29 months to the extent of Rs.4,65,818/-. It is projected that the petitioner has already superannuated from service on 30.06.2022. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as a police constable on 19.06.1986 under IC No. 1244. Thereafter, his service was regularized and he was also promoted to a higher level of post. After rendering 35 years of service, the petitioner was superannuated from service on 30.06.2021, followed by a release order dated 22.09.2022. While serving as Sub- Inspector under the establishment of Commandant, 14th NAP (IR), Kiphire, Nagaland, he was given less salary for the period between 01.07.2016 and 01.11.2018 for a period of 29 months, amounting to Rs.4,65,818/-, as stated above. In order to show the less drawing of salary, the petitioner has relied on the acquaintance roll for the period of July 2016 to November 2018, as well as his bank statement, to show that the amount shown in the acquaintance roll (Annexure-VI) is not the amount that was entered into his bank account. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had made representations to the Director General of Police, Kohima, as well as to the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, and the authorities had communicated that they Page No.# 3/8 would look into the matter, but no prompt action has been taken on behalf of the State respondents to examine the petitioner’s claim or to make payment of the less drawn salary for 29 months. It is further submitted that the petitioner had requested the Director General of Police as well as the Home Commissioner of the State of Nagaland to provide him with a copy of the acquaintance roll or the details of less drawn salary/ arrear from 09.03.2015 to 05.12.2018, but no action has been taken by the respondents. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner to release the less drawn salary/ arrear for 29 months within a period of two months after necessary rectification. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 10.06.2024 and stand taken therein was changed when the said respondents had filed their subsequent affidavit on 23.07.2025. 5. It is submitted that in the affidavit, which was filed on 10.06.2024, the State respondents have produced a copy of the acquaintance roll with deduction lists in respect of the petitioner from the month of July 2016 to November 2018, but in the subsequent affidavit dated 23.07.2025, the State respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner has drawn excess salary for the period from 01.12.2010 to 01.12.2013 and from 27.05.2014 to 01.12.2015. They also reflected less drawn pay of the petitioner for the period between 01.07.2016 to 01.10.2018. Accordingly, it is submitted that the authorities should consider and dispose of the Page No.# 4/8 representation of the petitioner and to provide complete details of the less drawn salary of the petitioner and make payment of the same to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the calculation sheet, the respondent authorities have made a calculation of excess pay drawn from 07.09.2010 to 01.12.2013 and from 27.05.2014 to 01.12.2015, which is beyond the period of claim made by the petitioner and in his writ petition the only grievance of the petitioner is regarding the less drawn salary, partly of which is admitted in the affidavit filed on 23.07.2025. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that pursuant to the office memorandum dated 10.11.2016 and corrigendum dated 11.11.2016, issued by the Finance Department, the employees of the State were granted Dearness Allowance (DA) for employees drawing pay under RoP Rule of which the first installment was w.e.f. 01.01.2016, and the second installment was w.e.f. 01.07.2016. The increase of DA was at the rate of 6% w.e.f. 01.01.2016 from the existing rate of 119% to 125% of the pay in pay-band including grade pay, which is applicable to the petitioner and for the second installment w.e.f. 01.07.2016, the increase of DA was 5% w.e.f. 01.07.2016 from the existing rate of 125% to 130%. However, by the corrigendum, the increase was made to 7% w.e.f. 01.07.2016 from the exiting rate of 125% to 132% in the pay-band including grade pay in respect of the grade pay of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the affidavit filed on 10.06.2024, separate statements have been annexed with regard to the arrear DA statements as well as with regard to the acquaintance Page No.# 5/8 roll with deduction lists in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the entries made in the acquaintance roll produced by the respondents do not tally with the entries made in the acquaintance roll statement, which is annexed at page 21 of the writ petition. 8. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that the second affidavit was filed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 20.05.2025. 9. Considered the materials available on record being the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents on 10.06.2024, additional affidavit filed by the State respondents on 23.07.2025 and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 20.08.2024. 10. From the contents of the acquaintance roll, which is annexed to the writ petition at page 21 (Annexure-VI) and the copy of the acquaintance roll, which is filed by the State respondent nos. 1 to 5 in their affidavit filed on 10.06.2024, it clearly indicates a mismatch of the amount in the column of DA. The amount of DA reflected in annexure to the writ petition is shown as Rs.19,552/- for the period from July 2016 to November 2016, but in the Annexure- G1 annexed to the affidavit of the State, the amount of DA is shown as 119% and quantified at Rs.17,411/- for the period from July 2016 to November 2016. Moreover, in the acquaintance roll annexed to the affidavit filed by the State on 10.06.2024, which are authenticated by the Commandant, 14th NAP, (IR) Battalion, Okhezung, Kiphire, one of the columns also reflects other deduction, Page No.# 6/8 which is Rs.1,481/-, Rs.1,711/-, Rs.4,681/-, Rs.1,281/-, and Rs.1,481/- respectively for the months of July 2016 to November 2016, which is on account of Battalion Fund, Maintenance Fund, NPRIS, S/REV, NGO Mess, Cash in hand, School, and Tithes, which is not available in the copy of acquaintance roll annexed by the petitioner. The similar difference in DA also appears in the acquaintance roll for the month of January 2018, which in the document annexed by the writ petitioner, it is shown as Rs.23,915/-, and is reflected as Rs.21,587/- at the rate of 139% for the month of January 2018. 11. It may further be mentioned that the statement of the acquaintance roll, which is available in the affidavit filed by the State respondents on 10.06.2024, being a part of the said affidavit is also served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have knowledge about the same. 12. Therefore, insofar as the claim of the petitioner regarding less drawn salary is concerned, the same appears to be on account of two entries in the acquaintance roll, which is annexed in the affidavit filed by the State so far as the amount towards DA and sum of other deductions are concerned. The said documents being annexed by the State respondents in their affidavit in opposition, which is found to be authenticated by the Commandant, 14th NAP, (IR) Battalion, Okhezung, Kiphire cannot be disbelieved. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the calculation of DA, which is projected by the respondents are incorrect in any manner. However, if the rate of DA as projected by the State respondents is calculated, it does not match with the rate of DA as Page No.# 7/8 reflected in Annexure-VI (page 21 of the writ petition), and the deductions, which are reflected in annexure G-series to the affidavit filed by the State on 10.06.2024 is not reflected in the calculation sheet of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the calculation of other deductions, which is reflected in the affidavit filed on 10.06.2024 by the State respondents is incorrect or manufactured or that those deductions could not have been made by the State respondents. 13. Accordingly, this Court does not find this to be a fit case for remanding the matter to the concerned authorities either for re- calculation or for disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 14. The State respondents have been able to demonstrate that the pay, which has been credited to the bank account of the petitioner, is in accordance with the acquaintance roll duly prepared by the competent authorities. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the affidavit filed by the State, the State respondents had also seeking recovery of amount excess paid. In this regard, although there is no prayer in this writ petition, but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, it would be open to the petitioner to respond to action initiated by State for recovery of the amount if allegedly found due from him. 16. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands Page No.# 8/8 dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant