Meghalaya High Court

WP(C)/170/2025 of DIPURAM DAS Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 4 ORS. on 28 October 2025

Cites 0, Cited by 0

No.09 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C). No. 170 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 Shri. Dipuram Das, Son of (L) Shri. Digendra Ch Das. …Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Education, Government of Meghalaya,

Serial No.09

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C). No. 170 of 2025

Date of Decision: 28.10.2025

Shri. Dipuram Das,

Son of (L) Shri. Digendra Ch Das.

…Petitioner

-Versus-

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Education, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

2. The Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong.

3. Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, South West Garo Hills, Ampati.

4. The Treasury Officer, South West Garo Hills, Ampati, Meghalaya.

5. The Accountant General (A&E), Meghalaya, Shillong.

…Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S.A.Sheikh, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

: Ms. S.Bhattacharjee, GA for R 1-5.

Ms. E.B.Passah, Adv. for R 6.

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. Mr. S.A.Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the affidavit being filed by the State respondents, it appears that there is no more impediment for the grant of family pension to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 8 and 11 of the said affidavit which is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. That the deponent most humbly submits that he received the reply which is mentioned that the Disability Certificated is verified and authenticated vide letter No. DRCDA/TCH/WGH/06/2025/70, dated Tura the 4th June, 2025, issued by Dr. C.R.Marak, Nodal Officer, District Resources Centre on Disability Affairs (DRCDA), Tura Civil Hospital and it is found that the concerned individual (writ petitioner) has been thoroughly assessed by a qualified specialist doctor at the Tura Civil Hospital, West Garo Hills. Following the medical assessment, the Certificate has been authenticated and verified for accuracy and completeness. The verified Certificate has been duly updated and recorded in the official portal of UDID website for the necessary action.

11. That the deponent most humbly submits that there is no objection on the part of the concerned respondent/deponent considering the genuineness of his disability in granting the family of his mother (L) Anita Bala Das who died on 29th August, 2024 leaving behind the petitioner who is mentally retarded person, the dependant on the pension of his deceased mother and the Hon’ble Court may pass necessary order considering the facts and circumstances of the writ petition based on the relevant document and the judgment dated 13-04-2021 passed by the Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court which is annexed as annexure-7 at page 27 to 29 of this instant writ petition.”

2. Ms. S.Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondents No. 1-4, though not disputing this position, however, has submitted that there is some confusion with regard to the date of birth of the writ petitioner as in the UDID( Unique Disability ID) Card, it has been shown as 1971, whereas accordingly to the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar Birth & Death, Mahendraganj CHC, South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya, the date of birth is shown as 30-06-1964.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the materials on record. Accordingly, as per the affidavit which has been reproduced hereinabove, it appears that there is no impediment to the grant the family pension to the writ petitioner and the same is accordingly directed to be processed and disbursed at the earliest. With regard to the date of birth, as in the UDID Card only the year has been given, and a more accurate representation is given in the Birth Certificate, as such, the date of birth as given in the Brith Certificate i.e. 30-06-1964 will be taken as the correct date of birth of the writ petitioner.

4. As ordered above, the matter is disposed of with a further direction that the entire process be completed within a period of three months and pension disbursed thereafter.

Judge

Digitally signed by SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA RYNJAH Date: 2025.10.28 05:45:05 IST Signature Not Verified

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead