JEBIA M MOMIN v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 4 OTHERS
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2025-02-28. JEBIA M MOMIN v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 4 OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 18 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C). No. 113 of 2024 Date of Decision : 28. 02. 2025 Miss. Jebia M. Momin …Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Forest and Environment, Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force Meghalaya, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin, Meghalaya. 4. Pr. Accountant General (A&E) Meghalaya, Shillong. 5. Divisional Social Forest Officer, Tura, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. P. T. Sangma, Adv. Ms. G. Ch. Marak, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, GA with Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, GA for R 1-3&5. Mr. K. Kharmawphlang, Adv.
for R 4 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. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The only issue in the present writ petition is the non-release of the retirement and other terminal benefits of the deceased employee to the writ petitioner who is stated to be the daughter. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. P. T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the course of the proceedings in the instant matter, the writ petitioner has received the Leave Encashment, GPF, GPF linked insurance scheme, ACPS and MACPS arrears, and what remains is the Gratuity and Family Pension. He however, submits that the non-release of the other benefits is due to the fact that the writ petitioner has not been able to furnish the Death Certificate of her late father. 4. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA appearing for the respondents No.
1-3 & 5, has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 13 of the affidavit wherein the details of the amounts released to the writ petitioner has been given and also the fact that two letters had been sent to the writ petitioner th th on 29 July, 2024 and 16 August, 2024, requesting her to furnish the Death Certificate of her late father. He therefore, submits that there is no impediment for releasing the other remaining benefits and it is for the writ petitioner to furnish the required documents. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the matter, it is noted that this writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself by directing the writ petitioner to furnish the required Death Certificate and other documents within a period of two months from today, and thereafter on such submission, the respondents shall process the same and release the remaining amounts within a period of two months thereafter. 6.
With the above direction, matter stands closed and disposed of. Judge Signature Not Verified 4 Digitally signed by SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA RYNJAH Date: 2025. 02. 28 12:37:32 IST
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.