Page No.# 1/14 GAHC020004272025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/127/2025 SMT. TSUNONG TIKHIR W/O LATE TONGMONG TIKHIR, KIPHIRE TOWN, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS REPRESENTEDF BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY WORKS AND HOUSING DEPT. PWD NAGALAND SECRETARIAT KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER ANBD SECRETARY P AND AR DEPT NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (HOUSING) NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (HOUSING) TUENSANG DIVISION NAGALAND 7:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL VERIFICATION COMMITTEE KIPHIRE NAGALAND 8:SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER PWD HOUSING Page No.# 2/14 SUB DIVISION TUENSANG NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : ZAKATO CHISHI, MUGHAKA,TSIPONGSE THONGER Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. Zakato Chishi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. [2.] The petitioner by filing this writ petition has sought for a direction from this Court to set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 05.10.2024 (Annexure-21) and the Notification dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure-23) by which her services as Work Charged Employee has been terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities concerned to pay her back wages and also regularise her into services in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch). [3.] It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Work Page No.# 3/14 Charged Mali in the Scale of pay of Rs.800-18-890-20-1050-25-1475 per month with all other admissible allowances from time to time vide Office Order dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure-1). Since her appointment into service, the respondents authorities concerned have prepared her service book entering her particulars and service details. The respondent authorities concerned have also verified her services and she has continued in her service without break since her appointment. The petitioner also contends that she has also been receiving the enhanced pay from time to time as fixed by the respondent authorities. However, pursuant to a certain verification done with regard to the services of Work Charged employees, the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice by the Engineer-in- Chief, NPWD on 05.10.2024 stating that after verification, her Work Charged Services was found to be irregular and fell under ‘N’-Sub category and therefore, the Notice of termination was served to her. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply to the said authority on 28.10.2024 stating that she was appointed on Work Charged basis vide order dated 19.10.1994 and she has been serving as such till date. She also stated that there was some discrepancies while making an entry in the Personal and Information Management System (PIMS) portal and she by pointing out the correct particulars Page No.# 4/14 requested that the same may be rectified. However, the Engineer-in- Chief vide the impugned Notification dated 06.11.2024 terminated her services as Work Charged employee with immediate effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. [4.] The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Zakato Chishi submits that the petitioner was appointed vide Office Order dated 19.10.1994 as Work Charged employee in scale of pay and her services have been verified from time to time by the competent authority. Having rendered 15(fifteen) years of continuous service, the petitioner was also given time bound scale of pay vide Office Order dated 21.08.2018. Prior to that, her initial appointment was also duly verified by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman of District Level Verification Committee, Khievri District Nagaland on 22.10.2014. He further submits that as per the entry made in the PIMS, there is discrepancies in the entries made with the particulars of petitioner, the name of the petitioner has been wrongly entered as Shri Tsusang Tikhir and also in the Date of Birth of the petitioner which has been recorded as 06.04.1973 while the Date of Birth of the petitioner as per the Aadhar Card is 04.03.1973. Further, there is also discrepancies in the name of her father as was entered in the PIMS. The constituted District Level Verification Committee upon Page No.# 5/14 finding such discrepancies through its Chairman informed the Engineer-in-Chief NPWD on 20.09.2021 that the name of the petitioner, her Date of Birth, her father’s name be corrected in the PIMS. However, despite the same, the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice and thereafter, terminated from service. [5.] The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has rendered continuous service for more than 30(thirty) years at the time when she was terminated from service on 06.11.2024 and the respondent authorities instead of considering her for regularisation in service, have instead terminated her from service. He further submits that the petitioner despite having rendered her service till her termination from service, she was paid salary only up to the month of June, 2021. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to Annexure-17 of the Writ Petition which is the pay bill of Work Charged staff under the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD, Housing Sub- division, Tuensang for the month of June,2021 wherein, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 4 with her designation as Mali. [6.] The learned counsel further submits that PIMS is a data base which is required to be updated continuously on daily basis and the same includes the details of service confirmation, posting, promotion, retirement etc. which is to be carried out by the Page No.# 6/14 Department. Each Department has to have a PIMS cell and a Nodal Officer to ensure timely and correct registration and updation of the details of the service of the each employees. Such instructions have been circulated from time to time including vide Office Memorandum dated 27.05.2016 and 04.03.2022 amongst others by the Government of Nagaland in the Personnel and Administrative Department (PIMS Cell). The learned counsel submits that it is clear from the O.M dated 04.03.2022 that PIMS registration is the responsibility of the department and not of the employee concerned. Therefore, having regard to the verification report submitted by the District Verification Committee headed by the Chairman who is also the Deputy Commissioner of the District of Kiphire, the respondent authorities concerned ought to have made the necessary rectification in the PIMS since the petitioner is not responsible for making such entries either in the PIMS or in the service book. [7.] The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for regularisation of her service in terms of the O.M dated 17.03.2015 in view of the fact that she has rendered more than 30(thirty) years of service at the time she was terminated from her service and she was serving continuously as Work Charged Mali on scale of pay without break. The learned counsel therefore Page No.# 7/14 submits that the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to regularise the service of the petitioner in terms of the said Office Memorandum. He further submits that since the petitioner has been denied from rendering her service arbitrarily and illegally, she is also entitled to back wages from the month of July, 2021 till her re-instatement. In this connection, the learned counsel has relies upon the case of Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Municipal Council, Narkhed and Ors. (2019) 17 SCC 184. [8.] Per-contra, Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Govt. Advocate submits that there are certain discrepancies in the service particulars of the petitioners and for which reason, the petitioner was asked to produce the relevant documents. Since the petitioner has failed to do so, a Show Cause Notice was issued to her and since the same was not satisfactory, the impugned termination order was issued. She submits that the petitioner is not the only Work Charged employee who was not given salary awaiting the verification report. Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 21.08.2021 annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure -G, the learned Govt. Advocate submits that since a verification was to be done to verify the service of Group B, C and D categories, it was provided that till verification Page No.# 8/14 process is over, the said categories of employees should not report for duty and that they should report for duty only when the verification committee calls for the same. She submits that since the petitioner has failed to satisfy the respondent authorities as regards to the correctness of her particulars entered in PIMS, the petitioner has been terminated from service and therefore, same does not call for the interference of this Court. [9.] I have heard the submissions made by the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The petitioner was appointed as Work Charged Mali vide Office Order dated 19.10.1994 in the scale of pay of Rs. 800-18-890-20-1050-25-1475 per month with all other admissible allowances. Admittedly the petitioner continued as such till she was served with the termination order on 06.11.2024. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the appointment of the petitioner was unauthorized, illegal or doubtful. What has otherwise been projected is that entries made in the PIMS do not tally with the documents and testimonials produced by the petitioner. [10.] It may be seen that the services of the petitioner was otherwise verified from time to time and the same entered in her service book by the respondent authorities concerned. Not only that Page No.# 9/14 after completion of 15(fifteen) years of continuous service she was also given a time bound scale in terms of the Government order dated 24.07.2018 vide Office Order dated 21.08.2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD (H), Tuensang, Nagaland. Even in the list of Work Charged and casual employees in the District of Kiphire for the Department of PWD (Housing) which was verified by the constituted Committee, the service particulars of the petitioner was verified and found to be genuine. The petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.6 of the list prepared in this regard and which is annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. [11.] Although the learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the petitioner could not produce the relevant documents to support the entries of her particulars in PIMS, but it is seen that the Executive Engineer, PWD (H) Division, Tuensang Division on 08.03.2022 had forwarded the relevant documents pertaining to the petitioner to the Chief Engineer PWD (H) Nagaland Kohima which included Aadhaar Card, Birth Certificate, appointment order etc,. It is true that the Date of Birth of the petitioner in the Aadhaar Card and the Birth Certificate is shown as 04.03.1973 but what has been entered in her service book otherwise is 04.06.1973. As already stated the respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the Page No.# 10/14 appointment order issued to the petitioner by the authority concerned on 19.10.1994 by which she was appointed as Work Charged Mali in scale of pay. The discrepancy in the Date of Birth otherwise can be taken care of in terms of the prevailing rules and guidelines in this regard. The discrepancies in the considered view of this Court cannot be a justifiable reason for terminating her service when the initial appointment itself has not been disputed. There may be other discrepancies in the name of her husband or in the name of her father, which can very well be looked into by respondent authorities concerned in terms of the recommendation made by the constituted District Verification Committee. [12.] The learned Govt. Advocate has also referred to the OM dated 21.08.2021, issued by the Government of Nagaland in the Works & Housing Department (Works Branch). Paragraph 2 of the said O.M. indeed provides that till verification process is over, the Group B, C and D categories of employees should not report for duty and should report only when asked to do so. However, what is provided as well is that the verification process is required to be completed within a period of 1(one) month from the date of OM. Therefore, the OM cannot be the basis for the petitioner not to report for duty from the date of issuance of the OM till she was Page No.# 11/14 terminated on 06.11.2024 since the period spent in the verification process very well exceeded the 1(one) month period stipulated. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that she has been rendering her service till she was terminated on 06.11.2024. [13.] Another aspect of the matter is that the Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2022 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland in the P&RD (PIMS Cell) at Paragraph No.7 of the O.M clearly shows that PIMS registration is the responsibility of the Department and not the employee concerned. Likewise, another Office Memorandum issued on 27.05.2016 by the same Department provides that PIMS database should be updated continuously on daily basis incorporating the details of service of the employees including confirmation, posting, promotion, retirement etc,. Therefore, the entry made in the PIMS with regard to the details of the petitioner is not a one time process. Like all other employees as provided in the Office Memorandum it has to be a continuous process and if any discrepancies are found in the entry, the same can very well be looked into by the Department by seeking a clarification with supporting documents from the petitioner. Therefore, when the very appointment of the petitioner has not been questioned, the respondent authorities in the considered opinion of this Court, could Page No.# 12/14 not have terminated her from service in the manner it was done. Accordingly, the impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 05.10.2024 and the Termination Order dated 06.11.2024 insofar as the petitioner is concerned are found to be not sustainable and are accordingly set aside. [14.] The Apex Court in Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel (Supra) while considering the issue of payment of back wages took into account the decision rendered by the same Court earlier in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak mahavidyalaya reported in 2013 10 SCC 324, wherein, it was held that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The same is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. It was further provided that ordinarily , an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make an statement before the adjudicating authority or the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. Likewise, Page No.# 13/14 if the employer wants to avoid payment of back wages, then it has to plead with cogent evidence that the employee/workman was gainfully employed as well. [15.] In the present case, the petitioner has not pleaded that she is not gainfully employed elsewhere while seeking for payment of back wages. Likewise, it is not the case of the respondents as well that the petitioner is gainfully employed after she has been terminated. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a Grade-IV employee and was serving on Work Charged basis, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served if the payment of back wages is limited to 50% of the amount which she would have earned if she was continuously serving. This direction for payment of back wages is made considering the fact that the termination of the petitioner has been interfered with by this Court as it is found to be not justified for the reasons already assigned in the preceding paragraphs. [16.] The respondents shall thus pass consequential orders in terms of the direction given within a period of 1(one) month. The respondents would be at liberty to seek for documents from the petitioner to update her service particulars in the PIMS. It is further provided that the period between the date of termination and the Page No.# 14/14 date of reinstatement of the petitioner would not be taken as a break for the purpose of considering her regularizing in service in terms of the OM dated 17.03.2015. The same shall however be subject to scrutiny and verification by respondent authorities concerned in accordance with law and as per the prevailing guidelines in this regard. [17.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant