Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010109142025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2784/2025 NO. C/ 361500M EX WARRANT OFFICER/ CLERK S. ANIL KUMAR HOUSE. KAIRALI JN, POST OFFICE KADAMPANAD NORTH, DIST PATHANAMTHITTA, KERLA, RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS WARRANT OFFICER/CLERK FROM ASSAM RIFLES. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES HEAD QUARTER DIRECTORATE GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG- 3:THE COMMANDER HEAD QUARTER 25TH SECTOR ASSAM RIFLES LEKHAPANI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM C/O 99 APO 4:THE COMMANDANT 28TH ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 AP Advocate for the Petitioner : V KUMAR, MR. M SHARMAH,MS M TIWARI,MR B PATHAK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. B SARMA (C.G.C) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 25.06.2025 Heard Mr. B Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Sarma, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who superannuated from the Assam Rifles as a Warrant Officer/Clerk in the year 2011. The petitioner is aggrieved that he has been deprived from his promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar/Clerk. The Assam Rifles introduced the rank and pay for Warrant Officer upon re-designation as per recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission on the basis of the order of High Court which was upheld by the Apex Court. However, the petitioner’s case was not found eligible by the Authorities and by communication dated 25.11.2024 the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner by stating that he is ineligible on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the required grading in the ACRs. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to the best of his information there was no adverse remarks in the ACR. However, subsequently, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has obtained information from the reliable source Page No.# 3/4 that his ACR for the year 2008-09 was marked as average. He has, therefore, approached this Court by referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 573, Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 16 SCC 143, Anil Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 4 SCC 276 and Union of India vs. GR Meghwal reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1291. Today when the matter was called up, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that he would like to file application seeking review of the ACRs for the relevant years for review of the grading given in the ACRS and he seeks liberty to the Court to file such representation. Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC does not object to prayer made. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to file necessary application seeking review of the relevant years. The representation shall be filed before the respondent no.2, namely, the Director General, Assam Rifles, Head Quarter Directorate General, Assam Rifles Shillong-11 within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent no.2 shall pass a speaking order within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the representation stated to be filed by the petitioner. Any such Page No.# 4/4 speaking order is passed shall be served on the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner having been granted liberty to file representation before the respondent no.2, no further relief is required to be considered by the Court in the present writ petition. With the above observations and directions, the Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant