URMILA DEVI v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 5 ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2025-10-23. URMILA DEVI v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 5 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 06 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA Daily List 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 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. th 6. The Commandant, 5 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 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 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3 Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2025. 10. 23 18:01:34 IST
Source: High Court of Meghalaya. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.