KARMAJIT RABHA v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS.
WP(C)/672/2025 · 2026-02-17
H S Thangkhiew
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 71 (MEG) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 71 (MEG) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
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: Hon’ble 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)
2026:MLHC:83
_________________________________________________________ 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 2026:MLHC:83
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”
2026:MLHC:83 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.02.18 17:01:27 IST