Meghalaya High Court
WP(C)/522/2025 of RAHIM ALI Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. on 10 July 2026
Serial No. 30-33 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 519 of 2025 with WP(C) No. 520 of 2025 WP(C) No. 521 of 2025 WP(C) No. 522 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Shri Hassain Ali Sarker, S/o Late Korban Ali, R/o Village Magurmari, P.O. Rajabala, P.S. Rajabala, West Garo
Serial No. 30-33
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 519 of 2025 with
WP(C) No. 520 of 2025
WP(C) No. 521 of 2025
WP(C) No. 522 of 2025
Date of Decision: 10.07.2026
Shri Hassain Ali Sarker,
S/o Late Korban Ali,
R/o Village Magurmari,
P.O. Rajabala, P.S. Rajabala,
Versus
Shillong.
2. The Director of Local Fund Audit,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Director of School Education and Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
Shri Abdul Wahab Miah,
S/o Late Afser Ali Munshi,
R/o Village Garodubi,
P.O. Haripur, P.S. Rajabala,
Versus
Shillong.
2. The Director of Local Fund Audit,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Director of School Education and Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
Smti Kanchon Begum,
W/o Late Joynal Abdin
R/o Village Bhaitbari,
P.O. Bhaibari, P.S. Phulbari,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya … Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shillong.
2. The Director of Local Fund Audit,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Director of School Education and Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
Shri Rahim Ali,
S/o Late Tarifullah Dewani,
R/o Village New Bhaitbari,
P.O. New Bhaitbari, P.S. Rajabala,
Versus
Shillong.
2. The Director of Local Fund Audit,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Director of School Education and Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Hassan, Adv. with Ms. M. Rahman, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Colney, GA with Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA
i)
Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii)
Whether approved for publication
Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the State respondents.
2. As these 4(four) matters are identical and similar, the same are being disposed of this common Judgment and Order.
3. The petitioners herein who were serving as Deficit Teachers are before this Court praying for release of the remaining Gratuity amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only, along with interest at the current market rate for the late payment and for other necessary orders.
4. Mr. S.K. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners after their retirement had been paid the Gratuity at the old rate and were in receipt of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupee Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only. However, he submits the said DCRG for Meghalaya Aided School teachers was then enhanced to Rupees not exceeding 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only, and it received the approval from the respondents on 19.03.2025. He further submits that though in the course of these instant writ petitions, the petitioners have been paid the remaining Rs. 6.5 lakhs, however no interest was paid thereon. The only remaining cause of action he submits, is that though the approval was obtained as far back as on 19.03.2025, the payment of
Rs. 6.5 lakhs, was made to the petitioners only on 28.01.2026. He therefore, prays that for this period the respondents are liable to pay interest on the said amount.
5. Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the State respondents has submitted that it is not a case when the approval was accorded for the enhancement of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-, the payment had to be made immediately, inasmuch as, the same was only an approval and the sanction for the said payment she submits, was issued only on 28.01.2026. In this regard, she has referred to the Annexure-A annexed to the affidavit to substantiate this fact. She therefore, submits that as the sanction had only arrived on 28.01.2026, and as the petitioners were paid soon thereafter, there is no delay on the release of the DCRG and therefore there is no question for payment of any interest.
6. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties has noted that the approval for enhancement of DCRG was approved on 19.03.2025, but however the sanction to pay to the Teachers was accorded on 28.01.2026. In the considered view of this Court, if any payment order is to be implemented the same comes only after the sanction of the requisite amount is made and funds placed. The said date therefore for which any delayed payment would commence from the letter dated 28.01.2026. However, as the petitioners have already been paid the enhanced amount from January, 2026 itself, in the considered view of this Court, no interest is payable on the amount.
7. Accordingly, as discussed above, these writ petitions stand closed and disposed of. JUDGE
Meghalaya 10.07.2026 “V. Lyndem-AR-PS”
2026:MLHC:692 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.07.10 19:02:18 IST Signature Not Verified