Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030003892025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/71/2025 Sh. B. Hmangaihsanga S/o B. Huliana R/o Leisang Veng, Serchhip, Mizoram. VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 3 Ors. Aizawl, Mizoram. 2:The Principal Secretary Finance Dept. Govt. of Mizoram 3:The Home Secretary Home Dept. Govt. of Mizoram 4:The Commandant 2nd IR Battalio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1-4 Page No.# 2/5 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 27.06.2025 Heard Mr. Saihmingthanga Sailo, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the appropriate any order for setting aside the order which had declined the representation of the petitioner for payment of compassionate allowance, on the ground that compassionate allowance can only be entertained within 6 months from the date of commencement as per Rule 41 (4) & (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 vide letter No. 21R/PEN/2025/99 dated 04.02.2025. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was inducted in the service of Constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion, Mizoram vide Order dated 14.07.1994. After having served for about 12 years in the said Battalion, the petitioner was assigned to undergo pre-induction training course at CIJW School, Vairengte for further deployment to Chhattisgarh for Anti- Naxalite Operation in the month of August, 2006. During his training, the petitioner had applied for casual leave for 2 days due to personal reasons (hospitalization of his wife), which was not considered and therefore, on Page No.# 3/5 19.08.2009, he left for Khawzawl without authorization. Meanwhile on 21.08.2006, 28 numbers of Constables of the 2nd IR Battalion while undergoing pre-induction training course at CIJW School, Vairengte had deserted their training camp area. The petitioner was mistakenly included in the group of deserters and was removed from service vide Order dated 24.08.2006, along with the 28 Constables being branded as ‘deserters’. Thereafter, vide an Order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 18/ 2008 dated 10.12.2008, they (29 Constables) were all re-instated into service w.e.f. 16.01.2009, however, on 27.08.2009, the 29 Constables, including the petitioner were removed from service vide Proposed Penalty No. 21R/R/COMMON-DE/09/1141 dated 07.08.2009. The petitioner then submitted the representation for compassionate allowance which was declined by the impugned letter dated 04.02.2025. 3. Mr. Saihmingthanga Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the declined of the representation of the petitioner for compassionate allowance vide the impugned Order dated 04.02.2025, the petitioner again had submitted a representation for re-consideration vide letter dated 28.02.2025 to the respondent No. 4 which is kept pending till date and hence, the instant writ petition. Page No.# 4/5 4. Notice of motion be issued to the respondents. 5. Mrs. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State respondents. No need to issue formal notice. 6. On hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the nature of the writ petition filed, this Court finds that the petitioners have submitted a representation for re-consideration of the impugned Order dated 04.02.2025 on 28.02.2025 and the same is pending till date. This Court has also perused the representation dated 28.05.2025 wherein, it is seen that the grounds for re-consideration of the impugned Order dated 04.02.2025, which had declined the compassionate allowances sought by the petitioner by stating that compassionate allowances can only be entertained within 6 months from the date of commencement as per Rule 41 (4) & (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, are the same with the grounds highlighted in the writ petition filed for setting aside the said impugned Order dated 04.02.2025. 7. This Court therefore, finds that the said representation dated 28.02.2025 for re-consideration of the impugned Order dated 04.02.2025 should be first disposed of by the concerned authorities since the concerned authorities have the duty and the obligation to dispose of such Page No.# 5/5 kind of representations within a reasonable period of time. 8. Accordingly, instead of going into the merits of the instant writ petition, this Court, at the motion stage, find it appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition with a direction that the concerned authorities should disposed of the representation dated 28.02.2025 which is for the re-consideration of the letter No. 21R/PEN/2025/99 dated 04.02.2025, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order by abiding to the principles of equity, fairness and justice. In the meantime, the petitioner is also given the liberty to furnish copies of the authorities/judgments he would like to rely upon in support of his representation dated 28.02.2025 to the concerned respondents/authorities. 9. The writ petition No. 71 of 2025 thus stands disposed as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant