Jc- 362324 M Naib Subedar/ Clerk MD Ibomcha Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

The grievance of the petitioner is that his claim for grant of MACP-III upon completion of 30 years of service was not granted as according to the respondents, the petitioner did not meet the required benchmark. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had ventilated his grievances by way of representation dated 18.06.2022 and which was not considered by the authorities and without consideration of the same the claim of the petitioner stood rejected.

¶20

The respondents have filed their affidavit and there is a clear averment in the Para-14 that the respondents had duly received the representation but the same is lost in transit and therefore, they are unable to consider his representation. Paragraph-14 of the said affidavit is extracted below:

¶21

”14. that with regards to the statement made in Para-18, the deponent submits that the representation of the petitioner was received at Director General Assam Rifles through chain of Command. However, the same was returned to Headquarters 5 Sector Assam Rifles due to recommendation of commanders in chain were not found with the

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

application. However, the same was lost in transit. Hence, the Respondents were unable to consider his representation. However, the Respondent acknowledges the petitioner’s rights to submit afresh representation and the Respondents assures the Hon’ble Court that the fresh representation, if submitted, will be given due consideration and the same will be disposed of based on the merit of the case.”

¶24

In deference to the earlier orders passed by the Court, the learned CGC has placed before the Court the instructions received which reflect that the petitioner was duly communicated the APAR which is reflected in the para-9 of the writ petition that although the earlier orders of the Court reflected that the APAR was not communicated. According to the learned CGC as per the records, the APAR will duly communicate. What is further evident from the affidavit is that the said representation of the petitioner was also received but before it could be redressed the same was misplaced in transit. Learned CGC on instructions submits that a fresh representation, if filed, can be examined and disposed of the respondent authorities.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the averments made in the pleadings which are exchanged, it is seen that at Anexure-2 of the writ petition, the petitioner had already represented before the Director General of Assam Rifles requesting for upgrading the APAR Grade covering the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 by his representation dated 18.06.2022 and the respondent authorities have admitted receipt of the said

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

representation but the same could not be redressed as the same had lost in transit.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this Court permits the petitioner to submit a duly attested photocopy of the representation dated 18.06.2022 which is available at Annexure-2 of the writ petition to the Director General of Assam Rifles, Shilling, so that the respondents can examine the claims made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as to whether the petitioner is entitled to upgradation of his APAR for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. Let this representation be filed before the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondents will dispose of the representation within a further period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶29

With the above observation the writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands merged.

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Jc- 362324 M Naib Subedar/ Clerk MD Ibomcha v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jc- 362324 M Naib Subedar/ Clerk MD Ibomcha v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Anindita Bora and Anr. Vs the Secretary to the Govt of Assam and Ors.

Kalijoy Sengyung and 32 Ors. Vs North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council and 6 Ors.

Dr Sulekha Doley Vs the State of Assam

Smti. Jayasri Patowary Vs the Assam Public Service Commission

Ashish Kapinjal Vs the Assam Public Service Commission and 3 Ors.

Bakul Nath Vs the Union of India and Othrs