JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed the instant petition challenging the Order dated 17th July, 2019 issued by the respondents wherein it was held that the petitioner will not be entitled to claim arrear pay and allowances during his period of absence but will be entitled from the date of joining duty. 2. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was that he was initially appointed on Muster Roll basis as a lineman in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Lunglei Electrical Maintenance Division (now re-designated as Power Maintenance Division) since February, 1983 till 06.10.1988. Subsequently, he was appointed to the post of Jugali on officiating basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 750-940 purely on temporary and could be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons thereof. His appointment order was made by the Executive Engineer, Lunglei Electrical Division, Lunglei dated 07.10.1988. While he was working on officiating basis as Jugali, he was arrested on 18.05.1992 in connection with Lunglei Police Station Case No. 123/1992 u/s 394/307 IPC r/w Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The FIR was filed by the SDO, P&E Dept. Lunglei. The petitioner was initially convicted u/s 394 IPC and Section 14 of the Foreigner’s Act. However, on filing a revision petition the Appellate Court vide its order dated 02.06.2011 directed the Trial Court to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. The Appellate Court had dismissed the criminal revision for which the petitioner had filed a Criminal Appeal No. 2/1996 wherein, this Court in its Judgment dated 31.03.1999 had sent back the case to the learned Addl. District Magistrate (J) by remanding the case for retrial in form of a criminal appeal. The Court of the Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial) in criminal appeal No. 2/1996 vide its judgment dated 28.06.2004 had then convicted the instant petitioner u/s 14 of the Foreigner’s Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner then filed criminal petition before this Court, which was disposed of vide its Order dated 02.06.2011 by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet filed against him. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner then filed criminal petition before this Court, which was disposed of vide its Order dated 02.06.2011 by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet filed against him. Thereafter the JMFC, Lunglei Judicial District vide its judgment delivered on 11.10.2013, acquitted the petitioner of the charge made against him u/s 394 IPC r/w section 14 of the Foreigner’s Act. On being acquitted by the Court, the petitioner had tried to join his duty, which according to the petitioner, the concerned Officer did not allow him to join duty in 2013, after he was acquitted. Initially he was also not allowed to join duty when he was granted bail in January, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner had made a representation for allowing the State respondents to join duty and for payment of back wages from 01.06.1992 to 16.07.2019. This matter was considered and on the advice of the Law & Judicial Department in their advice dated 18.06.2019, the petitioner had joined duty, however, being aggrieved by the Order dated 17.07.2019, wherein, he was not allowed his pay arrear from 01.06.1992 to 16.07.2019, the instant petitioner has approached this Court in the form of the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant petitioner is not a Muster Roll employee, since he was given scale of pay when he was engaged as Jugali on officiating basis on 07.10.1988. He further submits that it was not the fault of the petitioner for not joining duty, since he was not allowed to join duty by the concerned Officers and therefore, on his acquittal he may be given his pay arrear. He further submits that the FIR was initiated by the SDO and submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Raj Narayan Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 809 (Para 6). In view of Para-6 wherein, the Apex Court had held that if the prosecution is launched at the behest of a Department and the employer is acquitted, different considerations may arise. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 809 (Para 6). In view of Para-6 wherein, the Apex Court had held that if the prosecution is launched at the behest of a Department and the employer is acquitted, different considerations may arise. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case also, since the FIR was submitted by the employer/Department, he needs to be considered considering the fact that the criminal proceeding against him, he has been acquitted and therefore, he is entitled to full back wages on his acquittal by the criminal Court. He further submits that the petitioner is still employed by the respondents till date and his employment has not been disputed by the respondents that had been allowed to join duty on his acquitted earlier, he would have been regularized in service being eligible under the scheme for Regularization of Muster Roll Employees, 2018. 5. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was not holding any substantive post and his employment was only as an officiating capacity and is actually a casual employee. In terms of his employment as a Jugali, it is clearly stated that he can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. Even though the petitioner has stated that he was not allowed to join duty by the respondents, there is no such evidence produced showing that he was not allowed to join his duty as claimed by him. As such, he has been absent from his duties for more than 27 years and he cannot be paid since he has not performed his duties for more than 27 years. He further submits that the Law & Judicial Department in their advice has also clearly stated that regarding the arrear of full pay and allowances for the period from 01.06.1992 onwards till his joining duty, which is a period of his absence from duty, he is not entitled to be paid any arrears due to his absence from his duty. 6. The learned Govt. Advocate also submits that his initial appointment was also on Muster Roll basis and under such circumstances, he cannot be considered as a Govt. servant in terms of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 6. The learned Govt. Advocate also submits that his initial appointment was also on Muster Roll basis and under such circumstances, he cannot be considered as a Govt. servant in terms of the CCS (CCA) Rules. She further submits that the period of detention of the petitioner has exceeded 48 hours and therefore, if he is a Government servant in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules, he would be deemed under suspension vide IA(A)(1) FR 54 (B). However, since the petitioner is only employed as Muster Roll basis, such procedure as required by CCS (CCA) Rules is not applicable to him. Thus, she submits that since the petitioner has not performed any duty during the said period, he is not entitled to any back wages. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this Court finds that as per the submission of the petitioner, he was initially appointed on Muster Roll basis as a lineman in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Lunglei, in the Electrical Maintenance Division (now re-designated as Power Maintenance Division) since February 1983 till 06.10.1988. Thus, it is clear that as per his original appointment, his services were that of a Muster Roll. On his subsequent appointment to the post of Jugali, though, he was appointed in the scale of pay of Rs. 750 - 940/- it is mentioned in the appointment letter that his appointment was on official basis and purely temporary which could be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons thereof, the appointment letter dated 07.10.1988 was made by the executive engineer, Lunglei Electrical Division, Lunglei. Thus, it is clear from the above projections that the appointment of the petitioner is not against a regular post and cannot be termed as Government servant holding a substantive or in an officiating capacity has defined under Rule 9 (19) of the CCS (CCA)/ Fundamental Rules. It is also seen that since he is not a Government servant in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules - Rules 2 (h) when the Criminal proceedings was initiated against him and arrested on 18.05.1992 in connection with Lunglei Police Station, Case No. 123/1992 u/s 394/307 IPC r/w section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 8. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 8. This Court also finds that the claim of the petitioner that on his acquittal vide the order dated 11.10.2023, passed by the learned JMFC, Lunglei Judicial District, he was not allowed to joined duty is not substantiated by any evidence order. This Court therefore, finds that such a claim without any evidence cannot be taken into account. This Court has also perused the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that in the case of Raj Narayan (Supra) wherein the Apex Court had opined that even though, the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Jaipal Singh hold that if the prosecution is launch at the behest of the department and the employee is acquitted, different considerations may arise regarding payment of back wages to an employee. It is also seen that the Apex Court in Raj Narayan (Supra) had observed that the petitioner would be liable for back wages in the event of finding that the initiation of the criminal proceedings was malafide or with vexatious intent. In the instant case, there is no submission made that the FIR filed against the petitioner was malafide or with vexatious intent. It is also seen that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regards to Government servant a regular employee which is not so in the case of the present petitioner. 9. This Court also finds the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the petitioner been allowed to joined duty when he was acquitted from the criminal case initiated against him, he would have been regularised under the scheme called the Regularization of Muster Roll Employees Scale, 2000, holds no water, since the said submission is just based only on presumptions and assumptions with no basis to substantiate the claim. 10. For the above reasons, this Court finds that there is no merit in the Writ Petition for allowing the petitioner back wages/arrears during his absence from work from 01.06.1992 to16.07.2019. 11. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition, WP (C) No. 77 of 2023, is dismissed and disposed of. No cost.