Meghalaya High Court
WP(C)/107/2026 of KYNSAIBOR LYNGDOH Vs CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, MEGHALAYA ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. on 18 April 2026
Serial No. 16 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 107 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 Shri Kynsaibor Lyngdoh, S/o (L) Srendro Thabah, R/o Ritmawniew Village, Upper Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Chairman Cum Managing
Serial No. 16
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 107 of 2026
Date of Decision: 18.04.2026
Shri Kynsaibor Lyngdoh,
S/o (L) Srendro Thabah,
R/o Ritmawniew Village, Upper Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
…. Petitioner(s)
Versus
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. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Meghalaya Electricity Corporation Limited, (MeECL), Lumjingshai, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
2. The Director of Corporate Affairs, Meghalaya Electricity Corporation Limited, (MeECL), Shillong, East Khasi Hills District.
3. The Executive Engineer, Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited, (MePDCL) East Khasi Hills (D) Division, Shillong
… Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.R. Marak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Colney, Adv.
_________________________________________________________ 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. Ms. R. Colney, learned counsel has entered appearance today on behalf of all the respondents, as such notice is complete.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, that perhaps the matter can be disposed of by allowing the respondents to consider the representations of the writ petitioner annexed at Annexures- 6 & 7 to the writ petition within a time frame, inasmuch as, the matter concerns service terminal benefits.
3. Mr. M.R Marak, learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the writ petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in view of the fact the first representation had been preferred as far back as on 07.07.2023, for which there was no answer. He therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to file affidavit, and the matter be disposed of before this Court itself.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, in the considered view of this Court, in order to cut short the matter so that the petitioner may get relief, if any, within a shorter period of time therefore, directs the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, to consider and dispose of the representations of the writ petitioner annexed at Annexures- 6 & 7 to the writ petition, within a period of 4(four) weeks, from the date of this order.
5. With the above directions, the matter stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya 18.04.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”
Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.04.20 19:11:24 IST Signature Not Verified