GEORGE CHARLESTONE BASAIAWMOIT AND 20 ORS. vs NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY AND 5 ORS.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 197 of 2023 Date of Hearing: 15.05.2026
Date of Decision: 28.07.2026
1.Shri. George Charlestone Basaiawmoit
S/o Shri. P. Nongneng
2.Shri. Lamborlang Kharpuri
S/o Shri. R. Dorphang
3.Smti. Banrilin Kharumnuid
D/o (L) S. Kharumnuid
4.Smti. Liza Wahlang
W/o Late Welson Khongwir
Newly substituted as Petitioner No. 4
vide Hon’ble Court’s order dated 07.05.2026
passed in M.C[W.P (C) No. 61 of 2025]
5.Shri. Tonic Thawmuit
S/o (L) W. Sohtun
6.Shri. Sharles Lyngdoh
S/o Shri. D. Mawlieh
7.Shri. Polin Thabah
S/o (L) M. Lyngdoh
8.Shri. Swarensing Nongbri
S/o Shri. D. Nongdhar
9.Shri. Baristarwell Surong
S/o (L) W. Mukhim
10. Shri. Banroi Chyne
S/o Smti. M. Chyne
1
11. Shri. Shanborlin Mawblei
S/o (L) S. Kharhujon
12.Shri. Plester Kharumnuid
S/o (L) T. Kharbani
13.Smti. Janalin Nongkynrih
D/o Shri. E.D. Lyngdoh
14.Smti. Sheetal Singh
D/o Shri. Sulkan Singh
15.Shri. S. Marbaniang
S/o (L) K. Kharkongor
16.Shri. Daniel Pasi
S/o Shri. D. Byrwa
17. Shri. Grass Marbaniang
S/o Shri. F. Bushan
18.Havamon Dympep
W/o (L) K. Manih
Newly substituted as Petitioner No. 18
vide Hon’ble Court’s order dated
07.05.2026 passed in M.C[W.P (C) No. 61 of 2025]
19.Smti. Juwanita Malngiang
W/o (L) K. Wanniang
Newly substituted as Petitioner No. 19
vide Hon’ble Court’s order dated
23.08.2023 passed in M.C[W.P (C) No. 185 of 2023]
20.Shri. Anthony Lyngdoh
S/o (L) K. Snaitang
21.Smti. Rupa Gurung
D/o (L) P.B. Gurung :::Writ Petitioners
2
-Vs-
1.North Eastern Hill University
Represented by the Vice-Chancellor
NEHU Campus, Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793022
2.The Registrar, North Eastern Hill University,
NEHU Campus, Shillong, Meghalaya – 793022
3.Assistant Registrar (Admn), North Eastern Hill
University, NEHU Campus, Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793022
4.Assistant Registrar (Estt – I), North Eastern Hill
University, NEHU Campus, Shillong,
Meghalaya – 793022
5.Deputy Registrar, (Estt – I), North Eastern Hill
University, NEHU Campus, Shillong,
Meghalaya – 793022
6.Section Officer, Estt. (Apptt), North Eastern Hill
University, NEHU Campus, Shillong,
:::Respondents
Meghalaya – 793022
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. T. Dkhar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, SC NEHU
3
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 are engaged as Pro-rata Casual Labourers
on daily wage basis by the respondents in different departments of NEHU,
by way of the instant writ petition have prayed for quashing and setting
aside of an impugned letter dated 20.04.2011, whereby the petitioners were
th
to be paid wages on actual days’ basis without additional payment of 1/6
day for the month of March 2011. The case put up by the petitioners are
that they were re-engaged for 89(eighty-nine) days, when the actual
practice is 90(ninety) days, and that the service rendered is continuous in
nature without any break, which has resulted in an arbitrary deduction of
the amount payable.
2. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T.
Dkhar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned action of the respondent University by the order dated
20.04.2011, introducing an artificial break of one-day, thereby reducing
90(ninety) days of service to 89(eighty-nine) days is contrary to law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Senior counsel has
4
placed reliance in the judgments of Haryana State Electronic
Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Mamni reported in (2006) 9 SCC 434
and Duli Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1992) 2
SCC 28 , and has submitted that by a subsequent order dated 15.06.2011,
whereby in the case of casual labourers working in a 5(five) days a week,
th
an additional payment of wages for 1/6 of the total number of days has
been allowed, the same he submits, runs contrary to an Office
Memorandum dated 07.06.1988, wherein it has been stipulated that casual
workers be given one paid weekly off after 6(six) days of continuous work.
The deduction, it is submitted is highly unreasonable and has caused loss to
the petitioners. It is also prayed by the learned Senior counsel that the relief
be moulded by also taking into consideration, the subsequent amended
order dated 15.06.2011, which was brought on record by the respondents in
the counter affidavit.
3. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent University
submits that the writ petitioners have been paid their wages, as per their
entitlement and in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in
their engagement order, and therefore, the alleged deduction of wages as
stated in the writ petition is not correct. It is then submitted that the
impugned letter dated 20.04.2011, had been replaced by order dated
15.06.2011, wherein casual labourers working for 5(five) days a week, an
5
th
additional payment of wage for 1/6 of the total number of days, the casual
labourers actually worked in a month be made with effect from March,
2011. With regard to the Office Memorandum dated 07.06.1988, it has
been submitted that as per the said O.M., the payment of casual workers
was to be restricted for the days, they actually performed duties with a paid
weekly off, and that in addition they would get paid for national holidays,
if it fell on a working day.
4. The petitioners it is submitted have been paid their wages on the
basis of the actual days of work based on performance certificate and since
the University has a five-day week, the casual labourers after 5(five) days
of work are granted paid wages of an additional day of the week, as
indicated in the order dated 15.06.2011. With regard to the attendance
register produced by the Petitioners No. 2 and 3, it is submitted that serious
contradictions are present, which give rise to disputed facts, such as, the
same being signed on all 7(seven) days of the week by the Petitioner No. 2,
whereas, the same was never signed by the Petitioner No. 3 on Saturday
and Sunday. The prayer that the petitioners are entitled for wages for all the
7(seven) days in a week, he submits is unsustainable, moreso, as the relief
claimed is with effect from the year 2011.
5. The learned counsel has then strongly argued that the writ petition
has been filed after a lapse of 13(thirteen) years from when the cause of
6
action arose, which clearly shows that their claims are unjustified. It is
further submitted that, apart from the fact that a writ court cannot
adjudicate serious question of facts, as seen by the attendance register, the
instant writ petition is not maintainable in itself on the ground of delay and
laches. In support of the arguments on delay, the learned counsel has
placed the decision of WG CDR A.U. Tayyaba (Retired) & Ors. vs. Union
of India & Ors. reported in (2023) 5 SCC 688 and Bichitrananda Behera
vs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1307 .
6. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on
examination of the materials as placed, at the outset notes that the
impugned letter dated 20.04.2011, was issued more than 13(thirteen) years
ago, and further the subsequent order dated 15.06.2011, has not been
impugned, but has been sought to be challenged by way of the rejoinder
affidavit. The order dated 15.06.2011, being vital to the issue, the same
having not been challenged, at the time of its issuance, and the same now
being sought to be questioned by way of the rejoinder affidavit, clearly
indicates severe laches on the part of the petitioners. Apart from this
glaring fact, the introduction of the attendance sheet which are evidentiary
in nature, which also has given rise to disputed facts, makes it difficult for
this Court to adjudicate the matter in a writ proceeding.
7
7. Though larger questions may remain, this Court cannot ignore the
fact that the writ petition has been presented after a long delay. Thus,
without lingering with the matter any longer or alluding to the authorities
placed by the respective parties, this writ petition on the ground of delay
and laches, apart from no proper challenge made to the substantive order
dated 15.06.2011, stands dismissed and is accordingly disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
28.07.2026
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified
8
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2026.07.28 13:00:42 IST