SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 28

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
KARMAJIT RABHA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. – Respondent
WP(C) 672 / 2025



Serial No. 15 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 672 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 Shri Karmajit Rabha, Age about 32 years S/o (L) Phulsing Rabha, R/o Kadamsali village P/O & P/S Tikrikilla, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya … Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

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

3. The District School Education Officer, West Garo Hills, Tura

4. The Managing Committee, Roni-Asim Deficit Secondary School (Bollonggitok)

Represented by its President/Secretary …. Respondent(s)

Coram:

Honble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. L. Shongwan Adv. with Mr. S.S. Nongrum, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, GA (For R 1-3)

Mr. Z.A. Choudhury, 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

1. The complaint of the writ petitioner before this Court is that though he has been placed under suspension since 07.04.2025, pending Disciplinary proceedings against him in connection with the services in Roni-Asim Deficit Secondary School, as a Science Teacher, he has not been paid the subsistence allowance.

2. Mr. Z.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, has submitted that there are serious allegations against the writ petitioner with regard to fabricating of documents, and as such a Disciplinary proceeding was drawn up and he was placed under suspension.

3. This Court notes that the challenge in the writ petition is not against the substantive suspension or Disciplinary proceedings, but only with the factum of non-release of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 4. In these circumstances as it is not disputed that the writ petitioner was serving in the school of the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 is directed to release the subsistence allowance forthwith, preferably within a period of 4(four) weeks from today.

5. The matter stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE Meghalaya 17.02.2026 V. Lyndem-PS

VALENTINO LYNDEM

Date: 2026.02.18 17:01:27 IST

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top