Paying salary for work that has not been performed amounts to an improper use of public funds and contributes to the unnecessary depletion of the State’s financial resources.
Public office is a public trust. This principle lies at the heart of good governance. Every servant is entrusted with the responsibility of serving the people honestly, diligently, and efficiently. Salary is founded on the principles of fairness, accountability, integrity, reciprocity and justice. Salary paid to employees is not a privilege or charity; it is remuneration for services faithfully rendered in accordance with the duties and work done. For receiving remuneration or wage, every employee/worker is expected to attend office regularly, work and discharge assigned responsibilities, and devote the prescribed working days/hours in order to earn the corresponding salary or wage.
When these obligations are neglected without lawful justification, serious ethical, administrative, financial, and moral questions arise. Receiving a full month's salary without regularly attending office or without performing any work should not be treated as a trivial matter. Unless the absence is covered by duly sanctioned leave, an authorised work-from-home arrangements (where permitted), official duty outside the office, or any other provision allowed under the applicable rules, payment of salary or wages for periods of unauthorised absence amount to an unjustified expenditure of public funds and undermine the principles of accountability, fairness, and responsible financial management.
Paying salary for work that has not been performed amounts to an improper use of public funds and contributes to the unnecessary depletion of the State’s financial resources. Every rupee paid from the Government treasury comes from public money contributed by taxpayers and is meant to serve the welfare and development of society. Misuse of these resources, however small it may appear individually, becomes significant when multiplied across departments over time.
Such conduct, I would say, be viewed as both the ‘sin of commission’ and the ‘sin of omission,’ as it involves both doing what ought not to be done and failing to do what ought to be done. Likewise, it should also be regarded as both an ‘act of commission’ and ‘an act of omission’. It is an act of commission when an employee knowingly receives remuneration or wages for duties that have not been performed. It is an act of omission when an employee deliberately neglects or fails to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to him or her. Such practices not only place an unnecessary financial burden on the Government but also weaken administrative discipline, reduce employee morale, delay public service delivery, and erode public confidence in government institutions. Honest and dedicated employees who attend office regularly and discharge their responsibilities faithfully may feel discouraged when they receive the same compensation as those who neglect their duties.
In private-sector organisations, the principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ is generally enforced, except where leave has been duly sanctioned or exceptional circumstances are recognized by the employer. Attendance, productivity, and accountability are closely monitored because organisational success depends upon the contribution of every employee. If private-sector organisations can enforce the principle of "No Work, No Pay," it would be both rational and reasonable that the same principle should also apply in public offices, subject to the applicable laws, service rules, and duly authorised exceptions.
Questions to Ponder Upon:
i) If we hire someone to work in our home, would any of us be willing to pay wages to that person if they neither come to work nor perform the work they were hired to do? The same principle applies to employees working in offices. Wages are generally paid in return for the work an employee performs or for fulfilling the duties they were hired to carry out.
ii) Can a society truly prosper if public money is spent without corresponding public service? The answer lies not only in government policies, rules etc. but also in the conscience of every individual entrusted with the responsibility of serving the people.
While the functioning of the public sector differs from that of the private sector, greater accountability in attendance and performance would undoubtedly strengthen governance. If public offices consistently ensured that salary payments were linked with attendance, assigned responsibilities, and actual work performed, it could help promote punctuality, improve work culture, reduce delays in public service delivery, and contribute significantly to the overall development of our State. By doing so, our State can reduce unnecessary and unproductive expenditure, allowing public resources to be redirected towards social welfare programmes and other priority areas that benefit society as a whole.
Government offices in our State have already introduced biometric attendance and other similar systems. This is a positive step towards improving accountability. However, biometric attendance alone should not become the sole criterion for salary payment. It should also reflect whether an employee has actually discharged the duties assigned to him or her. Attendance merely confirms an employee's physical presence; it does not necessarily reflect productivity, efficiency, or quality of work. Technical failures in biometric or other similar systems should be addressed promptly so that genuine employees are not unfairly affected. Ultimately, attendance should be complemented by proper supervision, performance monitoring, and evaluation of duties performed.
As citizens, it is easy to criticise politicians, departments, senior officers, or the government for poor and shortcomings in governance. Good governance cannot be achieved merely through criticism. True reform begins with each one of us. Every elected representative, public servant, employee, and citizen has a responsibility to perform their duties and serve with honesty, diligence, integrity, and conscientiousness, without favouritism or discrimination. When each of us fulfils our responsibilities faithfully, we lay the foundation for a transparent, accountable, and efficient administration that serves the public interest.
It is sometimes observed that certain employees do not attend office regularly yet continue to receive full salary. While this may not be true of all departments or all employees, even isolated instances deserve attention because they undermine public trust and weaken the credibility of the Government. Some people justify irregular attendance by claiming that even if they wish to attend the offices and work, they said there is no work assigned to them or to perform. They contend that they often spend their time playing indoor games or engaging in other non-official activities, even while present in the office. Whether such claims are accurate or exaggerated, they raise an important question: if there is genuinely insufficient work, should departments not i) review staffing patterns, ii) improve work distribution and allocation, iii) strengthen capacity-building and skill development programmes, and iv) redeploy employees to areas where their services are genuinely needed?
If such concerns are valid, i.e. if employees genuinely have no work to do, the answer is not to let them remain idle. Instead, competent authorities should improve workforce planning, assign work more effectively, provide training and capacity building where needed, or transfer/redeploy employees to departments or locations where their services can be utilized productively and efficiently.
This issue should not be viewed merely as the fault of employees alone. Accountability exists at multiple levels. Employees are responsible for faithfully performing their assigned duties. Supervisory officers are responsible for ensuring discipline, monitoring attendance, assigning meaningful work. The Government is responsible for establishing transparent systems, strengthening administrative oversight, and ensuring that public money is spent responsibly. Sustainable reform can only be achieved only when all stakeholders fulfil their respective responsibilities.
Our State is facing significant developmental challenges. Every rupee saved through efficiency, transparency, and responsible governance can, instead of being spent on salaries where no meaningful works is performed, be redirected towards priority sectors such as schools, hospitals, roads, drinking water, employment generation, rural development, and welfare programmes etc. for the general public, particularly the poor and marginalised. Given the limited availability of our public resources, every resources must be utilised with utmost care that delivers the greatest possible benefit to society.
This article is not intended to criticise or generalise all employees. Many employees, be it in public or in private sectors, discharge their duties with exceptional dedication, sincerity, and professionalism despite challenging working conditions and situations. They deserved respect, recognition and appreciation for their unwavering commitment to public service and excellence. Rather, this article is a constructive appeal to address those instances where negligence, unauthorized absenteeism, and lack of accountability exist. The misconduct of a few should never be allowed to tarnish the reputation of the many who faithfully serve with integrity, diligence and a strong sense of responsibility.
A healthy work culture is built upon honesty, discipline, punctuality, accountability, and a genuine commitment to public service. If every employee faithfully performs the duties entrusted to him or her, every supervisory officer exercises fair oversight, and every citizen fulfils his or her civic and social responsibilities, Nagaland can move steadily towards becoming a more efficient, transparent, welfare-oriented, and developed State. Let neither the public blame the Government unnecessarily nor does the Government ignore legitimate public concerns. Instead, let us work together to build a transparent, responsible, and efficient administration that will contribute to a more prosperous, welfare-oriented, and developed Nagaland.
A prosperous Nagaland will not be built solely through larger budgets or more government schemes. It will be built through honesty, discipline, transparency, accountability, punctuality, and a genuine commitment to public service.
Zeluosielie Kehie,
Sovima Village,
Chümoukedima-Nagaland.