Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.03.2026 vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 24 March, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:266
Serial No. 29
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 270 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.03.2026
Smti Ealenni Momin,
W/o (L) Orindro Sangma,
R/o Baida, P.O. Chotipara,
P.S. Krishnai, Goalpara, Assam ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
The Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department,
govt of Meghalaya, Shillong
2. Director of School Education & Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong
3. The Director of the Local Audit Fund,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
4. The Managing Committee of Songsak United
Deficit Secondary School, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya
... Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv. with
Mr. M.R. Marak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Ain, GA with
Mr. A.M. Pala, GA
Page 1 of 4
2026:MLHC:266
_________________________________________________________
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner who is stated to be the legally wedded wife of
one Shri (L) Orindro Sangma, who served as LDA at the United Songsak
Deficit Secondary School is before this Court praying for release of
gratuity and other admissible terminal benefits along with interest, from
the date of entitlement till date of actual payment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the
petitioner entered service on 01.08.1990, in the aforementioned School,
retired on September, 2017, and ultimately expired on 12.05.2023.
However, as the dues were not released, the petitioner has preferred the
instant writ petition.
3. Mr. S.A Shiekh, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the only hindrance that exists with regard to the release of
gratuity and other terminal benefits, is the objections of the respondents
to the age of her husband when he entered service.
4. Ms. S. Ain, learned GA with regard to the objections of the
age, has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed on behalf
of the State respondents, more particularly to a communication dated
Page 2 of 4
2026:MLHC:266
25.02.2021, wherein the case of the deceased employee Shri Orindro
Sangma, has been considered. She submits that as per the entry in the
Service Book, his Date of Birth was recorded as 15.09.1957, whereas as
per the HSLC Admit Card/Certificate, his age as on 01.03.1978, was
shown as 20 years 6 months, which would mean that the Date of Birth of
Shri Orindro Sangma should be 01.09.1957 instead of 15.09.1957. The
learned GA further submits that though the discrepancy is marginal, the
only fact that remains is that the petitioner while entering into service
was overaged, by 11 months. She also submits that the deceased
employee had never approached the respondents in connection with the
pension matter during his lifetime, and that the respondents are still
considering the case at their level.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and as
submitted by the counsel, it is noted that the deceased employee Shri (L)
Orindro Sangma was aged 32 years 11 months, at the time of entering
service. However, one fact that cannot be overlooked is that the petitioner
was appointed in a regular manner by the respondents, who had also
availed of his services till his retirement. In this respect, perhaps the
respondents are liable to be directed to consider positively the
condonation of the date of entry into service and to factor in, and compute
the entitlements accordingly.
Page 3 of 4
2026:MLHC:266
6. A Judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed in WA No. 9/2020 in
the case of Smti Manjusree Dutta vs. Smti Sujata Deb Roy & Ors. has
also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of
his case, wherein at Para-8 thereof, it has been quoted that the upper age
limit for appointment to Government aided School is 35 + 5, for
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
7. Accordingly, the respondents are therefore, directed to
dispose of the matter within a period of 3(three) months by taking into
account all the relevant factors, including the Judgment rendered by this
Court, as quoted above for release of the gratuity and terminal benefits.
Needless to add, with regard to the interest, the respondents are to decide
accordingly.
8. The matter thus stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
24.03.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.03.24 18:38:46 IST
