Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 236 (MEG)

State Of Meghalaya v. Wandell Passah

2014-09-24

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the applicants (Respondent in the writ petition) and also Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the applicants/respondents submitted at the bar that the applicants did not file any appeal against the judgment and order of this court dated 16.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 334 of 2012. This court by the said judgment and order dated 16.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 334 of 2012 had directed the applicants/respondents in the writ petition to calculate the Ceiling limit of DCRG for the respondents/writ petitioners in pursuance of the letter mentioned in the said judgment and order and Para-6 of the Meghalaya Aided College Employees Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1985 within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 334 of 2012. 2. Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel appearing for the applicants/respondents contended that the applicants/Respondents in the writ petition had already taken steps for complying with the directions of this court in the judgment and order dated 16.04.2014. However, full compliance with the directions of this court could not be completed within a period of 6(six) months mentioned in Para-15 of the judgment and order of this court dated 16.04.2014. 3. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the applicants submit at the Bar that the applicants/respondents are fully complying with the directions of this court in the judgment and order dated 16.04.2014. By this application, the applicants are praying for extension of the time for full compliance with the directions of this court in the judgment and order dated 14.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 334 of 2012 for the reasons mentioned in the present application. 4. This court perused the present application. 5. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners contended that many of the writ petitioners are the senior citizens and they need immediate financial assistance. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, further 3 (three) months time from today is granted as a last chance for complying with the directions of this court in the judgment and order dated 16.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 334 of 2012. 7. The application is allowed to the extent indicated above.