STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. BRIGITA WAHLANG
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Click here to view full judgement.
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,CJ. -
(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State of Meghalaya and its Commissioner and Secretary, Personnel Department, Director of Agriculture and Chief Engineer (WR) Water Resource, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong, assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26-09-2019.
(2.) The learned Single Judge by the aforesaid judgment has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, Smti. Brigita Wahlang. The writ petitioner contended that her husband (L) Homber Hynniewta was initially appointed as Driver in the office of the Directorate of Agriculture, Shillong vide order dated 14th March, 1988 in the regular pay scale of Rs. 350-10- 400-EB-11-510-EB-13-575/- p.m. plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules. He joined in that appointment on 24th March, 1988. After some time, he was required by communication dated 22nd April, 2002 to produce a Medical Certificate of his health to be issued by a Civil Surgeon as required under Rule 10 read with S.R(s) 8 of F.R (s) and S.R(s) as he was proposed to be confirmed in his services. He produced the required Medical Certificate. Thereafter, the Directorate of Agriculture, Shillong vide order dated 22nd May, 2002 confirmed her late husband as Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 975-20-1075-EB-25-1250-30-1550/- p.m with effect from 04-08-1995. He continued to serve with the respondent in the Agriculture Department and thereafter his services were temporarily transferred to Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department vide order dated 06-08-2002 and then his services were placed at the disposal of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department vide order dated 19-08-2005. Her late husband retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-11-2016. His pension papers were moved by the Department but before his pension case was finalized, he unfortunately died on 08-12-2016. The petitioner (his widow) approached the Department by making several representations for finalization of his pension case and also for grant of family pension. The respondent however, released only the amount for Leave Encashment and General Provident Fund which was subscribed by her late husband. Being aggrieved by the denial of family pensionary benefits, she approached this Court by filing a writ petition.
(3.) The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the appellant State to consider the case of the deceased employee (L) Homber Hynniewta for retrospective regularization with effect from the date he was confirmed in service i.e. 04-08-1995 and further to take consequential action thereto, in furtherance to the decision to be arrived upon. The entire exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Learned Single Judge has also directed, as observed, that the judgment shall not serve as a precedent for other employees who are similarly situated as the order has been rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.