Meghalaya High Court
WA/50/2025 of URMILA DEVI Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 5 ORS. on 23 October 2025
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WA No. 50 of 2025 Date of order: 23.10.2025 Urmila Devi …..Appellant - versus - 1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (Admn), Meghalaya, Shillong. 3. The
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No. 50 of 2025
Date of order: 23.10.2025
Urmila Devi
…..Appellant
- 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. State of Meghalaya represented by the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (Admn), Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.
4. The Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Personnel and A.R.(B) Department, Shillong.
5. The Secretary,
Government of Meghalaya,
Home (Police) Department, Shillong.
6. The Commandant, 5th Batallion,
Meghalaya Police, Simsong, Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. …Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Soumen Sen, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mrs T. Yangi B., AAG with
Ms. S.Shyam, GA
Serial No. 06 Daily List i) Whether approved for
Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
The writ petitioner/appellant is the wife of the deceased. The deceased husband of the writ petitioner/appellant was serving with the Meghalaya Police since the year 2008, had met with an accident and expired on 19.04.2013. As the incident happened while the deceased employee was on leave, he was considered to have died on duty.
2. The wife had filed a representation on 10.10.2014 before the respondent No. 6 for appointment on compassionate ground. The scheme for compassionate appointment was abolished w.e.f. 24.11.2010. In view of the fact that compassionate appointment is an exception to the regular employment and it can only be claimed provided there is a scheme in place and also the applicant has to fulfil the other requirements before being considered for appointment.
3. We are of the view that the decision of the respondent No. 6 in rejecting such prayer does not call for any interference. However, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that for an employee who have died while on duty would be considered for ex-gratia payment. We direct the respondent authorities to consider the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner for ex-gratia payment within a period of four weeks from date.
4. The appeal stands disposed of to the extent as modified above.
(W. Diengdoh) (Soumen Sen)
Judge Chief Justice
2025:MLHC:1004-DB Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2025.10.23 18:01:34 IST Signature Not Verified