Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Emanuel Lamare vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By The on 18 July, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:619
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 220 of 2023 Date of Decision: 18.07.2025
1.Shri. Emanuel Lamare
S/o John Biam
2.Shri. Imjing Mut Sten
S/o (L) Olwinson Bareh
3.Shri. Ram Dkhar
S/o (L) Haren Bhoi :::Petitioners
-Vs-
1.State of Meghalaya represented by the
Commissioner & Secretary (Civil Defence
& Home Guards) Department, Govt. of
Meghalaya, Shillong
2.The Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
P.H.E Department, Meghalaya, Shillong
3.The Chief Engineer, P.H.E.
Meghalaya, Shillong
4.The Executive Engineer (PHE) Rural
Water Supply Division, Jowai, West
Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya
5.The District Home Guards Commandant,
West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya :::Respondents
1
2025:MLHC:619
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv.
Mr. M.R. Marak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. The writ petitioners who were appointed as trained Home Guard
Volunteers are before this Court, assailing their discontinuance from
service and have made a prayer that they be allowed to serve till their age
of retirement, and further to quash the impugned letters dated 01.12.2022,
issued by the respondent No. 3, and 19.06.2023 issued by the respondent
No. 5.
2. Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners had been appointed as far back as on 05.05.1986, and were paid
in the pay scale as admissible under the Meghalaya Services (Revision of
2
2025:MLHC:619Pay) Rules 1980, and were deployed at the office of PHE at Jowai. He
submits that all along the benefits of revised pay scale in the course of their
employment was allowed to the petitioners till 2017, and when the new
revised pay scale was not granted, prompted them to file a writ petition
being WP(C) No. 37 of 2022, claiming the benefits of the revised pay
scale. The said writ petition he submits, was disposed of by order dated
04.09.2024, with the direction that the respondents compute the arrears in
pay as admissible to the writ petitioners till the date they were disengaged
from service. The learned counsel submits that though the first impugned
letter dated 19.02.2022, is a 30(thirty) day notice of disengagement and the
second impugned letter dated 19.06.2023, speaks about the petitioners
being disengaged since the end of December 2022, no formal
disengagement letter was ever served upon them. He therefore submits the
petitioners are therefore to be considered still in service and are entitled to
the pay, they were drawing till they are formally disengaged or retire.
3. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih,
learned GA for the State respondents has referred to the first impugned
letter dated 01.12.2022, and submits that the disengagement of the
petitioners had been informed to the Commandant of the Home Guards,
that the services of the petitioners would no longer be required from the
end of December, 2022. He further submits that by the second impugned
3
2025:MLHC:619
letter dated 19.06.2023, the three writ petitioners were informed by the
respondent No. 5, that their services had been discontinued vide the letter
dated 01.12.2022, and that in the same letter itself, it is noted that the
petitioners had been informed on 19.12.2022. As such, he submits no case
has been made out to allow the petitioners continuance in service till their
retirement date, or that they are entitled to any further amounts towards
pay.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the
only issue in the present writ petition for consideration before this Court, is
whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed, on their
assertion that they have never been formally disengaged from service. In
WP(C) No. 37 of 2022, this Court while dealing with the claim of the
petitioners that they be allowed the benefits of pay revision, as per the Fifth
Meghalaya Pay Commission had ordered in Para – 8 of the judgment
thereof, as follows:
“8. Accordingly, on this short point itself, the writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 to
compute the arrears in pay as admissible to the writ petitioners No. 1,
2 & 3 till the date they were disengaged from service. With regard to
the petitioner No. 4, as there has been no rebuttal with regard to his
date of birth, the department is to examine his case as per
entitlement, and on its own merit.”
4
2025:MLHC:619
5. The question therefore is, when were the petitioners disengaged
formally by the respondents? To this query, the learned AAG for the
respondents has sought to maintain that the petitioners were well aware that
they were disengaged from the end of December 2022, in view of the
impugned letters, whereas, the counsel for the petitioners has firmly refuted
the same by submitting that there was never has been a formal letter of
disengagement, and as such, the petitioners are entitled to their monthly
salary till the date of their retirement. This Court on examination of the two
impugned letters, notices that apart from the statement made in the second
impugned letter dated 19.06.2023, wherein, it is noted that the petitioners
had been informed, no other materials are available to substantiate the fact
of discontinuance of service from January, 2023.
6. It is to be noted herein that the Home Guards is a voluntary
organisation, and almost all ranks up to the company level are volunteers,
and as per the existing financial policy, the responsibility for payment of
duty allowance etc., to the Home Guards deployed for such duty, lies with
the authorities at whose instance the Home Guards are requisitioned. Being
volunteers, they cannot claim for regularization or permanent retention of
service, and as per the terms for engagement of Home Guard Volunteers,
any Requisitioning Authority intending to discontinue the engagement of
5
2025:MLHC:619
services of the Home Guard Volunteers will have to give a 30(thirty) days
prior notice to the department. In the instant case, the Requisitioning
Authority i.e. the office of the Chief Engineer PHE, Meghalaya, by the
impugned letter dated 01.12.2022, as per the stipulations had informed the
Home Guard Department of the disengaging of the services of the Home
Guards, which were to take effect 30(thirty) days from the date of the
letter. However, it appears the formal order of disengagement was not
communicated to the petitioners, and it was only when a query was raised
by the petitioners that they were informed about their disengagement by the
letter dated 19.06.2023. As observed above, apart from this letter, the
respondents have not been able to produce any material to show that the
writ petitioners had been informed. Had the petitioners been duly informed
about their disengagement, no right would survive to entitle them to any
further claim, but however, as this was not done, this Court is to consider
as to what reliefs, the petitioners are entitled to.
7. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that all the petitioners in the normal course of service, would have retired in
the months of February, March and April 2025, and as there was no formal
disengagement orders passed, they should be deemed to be still in service
till their respective retirement dates, and are entitled to the same monthly
salary that had been drawn upto the month of December, 2022. The
6
2025:MLHC:619
demand therefore is for payment of salary at the rate of last drawn pay i.e.
Rs.27,000/- per month from the date of disengagement till the date of
retirement.
8. This Court by order dated 06.02.2025, in order to bring closure to the
matter had earlier directed as follows.
“In the course of hearing, it is seen that prima facie there is
no formal order of disengagement issued by the respondents, though
it is stated in a letter dated 19th June, 2023 that the writ petitioners
have been informed on 19th December, 2022, about the same.
Be that as it may, as the formal disengagement is still under
question, to bring a closure to the matter, the learned AAG is
directed to obtain instructions as to whether a certain compensatory
amount can be advanced to the writ petitioners for the remaining
months in question i.e. from January 2023 – 19th June, 2023.”
9. Thereafter, when the matter was heard again, by order dated
21.03.2025, this Court on a finding that there was no formal order of
disengagement had directed as follows.
“On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court to
balance the equities, deems it fit that the petitioners be compensated
for the period which they were stated to be in service, that is, from
January, 2023 to June, 2023 after which they were disengaged by the
respondents.
7
2025:MLHC:619
Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms.
Z.E.Nongkynrih, learned GA on behalf of the respondents has voiced
his objections and has submitted that the writ petitioners were well
aware about their disengagement since 19-12-2022. However, he has
not been able to produce any materials apart from a letter where it is
stated that the writ petitioners have been informed to substantiate this
fact.
Mr. S.A.Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that if any compensation is to be given, the same should be
reasonable and acceptable to the petitioners who have rendered 36
years of service and only on the fag end of their service career, on
their agitating for the right to the 5th Pay Commission, had been
disengaged.
This Court has considered the rival submissions and the only
consideration at this stage that remains is the quantum of
compensation that they might be entitled to.
Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned AAG prays that he may be allowed
two weeks’ time to obtain proper instructions on the quantum.
Mr. S.A.Shiekh, learned counsel for the petitioner also likewise
prays that he be allowed to obtain instructions.
Prayers are allowed.”
10. As it can be seen from the orders quoted above that this Court had
deemed it fit to provide a compensatory amount taking into account the fact
that the petitioners had rendered over 36(thirty-six) years of service,
8
2025:MLHC:619
instructions had been sought as to the amount agreeable to be paid by the
respondents, which however were not received.
11. In the circumstances therefore, considering the fact that, had the
petitioners continued in service from the date of disengagement till
retirement, the amount of salary payable would be over Rs.7 Lakhs each,
and considering the fact that they were never served with formal orders of
disengagement, and also that they have not rendered any service for this
period, this Court deems it fit and proper in the interest of justice and
equity to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.1 Lakh
each, as a compensatory amount to bring a quietus to the matter.
12. As ordered above, the instant writ petition stands closed and
disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
18.07.2025
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified 9
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2025.07.18 03:02:40 IST
[ad_1]
Source link