Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020006892023 2026:GAU-NL:528 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : COP(C)/26/2023 ALL NAGALAND PWD FIELD WORKERS ASSOCIATION (ANPWDFWA) AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, SHRI K ATOVI AWOMI HEADQUARTER-KOHIMA, NAGALAND, REGD NO. ED/GSS/RS/2/2033/91-92(PT) 2: ALL NAGALAND PWD FIELD WORKERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY SHRI ZUBEMO NGULLIE HEADQUARTER-KOHIMA NAGALAND REGD NO. ED/GSS/RS/2/2033/91-92(PT) 3: ALL NAGALAND PWD FIELD WORKERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY SHRI YANGTAN CHANG HEADQUARTER-KOHIMA NAGALAND REGD NO. ED/GSS/RS/2/2033/91-92(PT VERSUS SHRI J ALAM, IAS AND 6 ORS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:SMTI. CHUBASANGLA ANAR COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPT OF P AND AR NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:SHRI KESONYU YHOME IAS Page No.# 2/4 COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY WORKS AND HOUSING DEPT NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:SHRI PUKRONEIZO ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:ER. HOZHETO THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (H) NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:ER. KEVIDE NAKHRO CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) NAGALAND KOHIMA 7:ER. TIAMEREN THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : SUPONGWATI WALLING, R ATSULA KIPS Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONBLE MR JUSTICE NCHUMBEMO MOZHUI O R D E R 01.10.2026 Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the Petitioner present alongwith Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 10 and Mr. N. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1. 2. By filing this contempt petition, the Petitioner has brought to the Page No.# 3/4 notice of this Court that the Respondents had willfully and deliberately violated this hon’ble Court’s Order dated 23.03.2023 passed in WP(C)/268/2022 whereby this hon’ble Court directed the Respondent authorities concerned to consider grant of Time-Bound Scale of Pay to the members of the Petitioners’ Association as expeditiously as possible and within the outer limit of 8 (eight) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. However, inspite of the Order passed by this hon’ble Court no action has been initiated by the Respondent authorities insofar as the direction of this Court is concerned and having no option the Petitioners’ Association has preferred this contempt petition. 3. The Respondent No. 3, during the pendency of the contempt petition, has filed an affidavit on 09.06.2026 wherein the Respondents have stated that the process of initiation of the payment of the Time-Bound Scale of Pay takes time, however, timely action was taken and by Letter No. H/R&B-146/2013-14/W/C(Pt.-1)/324 dated 03.06.2026 the Government conveyed the expenditure sanction and an expenditure not exceeding Rs. 41,43,894/- (Rupees Forty One Lakh Forty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Four) for payment of last drawn time-bound arrear in respect of the Workcharged employees as per the Court’s Order dated 23.03.2023 for the Financial Year 2025-26 under payment No. 58, PWD(R&B). 4. Further, it is admitted by the Respondents that when the arrear bills were verified and Drawal Authorities were issued for payment in March, 2026 there were certain oversight due to submission of wrong IFSC Code by the Division and as such, the payments could not be processed on the Page No.# 4/4 Treasury and Drawal Authority lapsed on 01.03.2026 and accordingly, the Department had initiated to get new Drawal Authority through the Government. Further, the Respondent No. 3 have produced Letter No. WH/R&B-98/2025/WC/120 dated 08.09.2026 whereby the previous oversight in submission of wrong IFSC was rectified and a new Drawal Authority have been issued. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 that insofar as the direction of this hon’ble Court contained in Order dated 23.03.2026 for consideration of grant of Time-Bound Scale of Pay is concerned, the same has been duly complied with and as such, prays for closing of the contempt petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that he has no instruction insofar as the balance payment of arrear is concerned and needs further instructions on this matter. 6. It is a well settled position of law that when there is even a partial compliance of the Court’s Order, the contempt proceeding cannot proceed when some action has been initiated from the Respondent’s level and in the present case, it appears from the records that the Respondents have complied with the directions of this hon’ble Court. 7. In view of the above, the present contempt petition is closed as complied with. JUDGE Comparing Assistant