Shri Munna Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 216 Mani

SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
                             Date: 2023.07.04 17:19:29 +05'30'
                                                                                      Page |1


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                             AT IMPHAL

                                             WA No. 100 of 2022
                                         Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019

                           Shri Munna Kumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o (L)
                           Awadhesh Kumar Singh, permanent resident of 15-a,
                           Kashyap Kutir, Nitibagh, Jagdeo Path, P.O. B.V. College,
                           P.S. Rukunpura, and District Patna, Bihar, Pin - 800014.
                                                                               .... Appellant

                                                       -Versus-

                     1. The Union of India, through the Secretary (Home), Ministry
                           of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi -
                           110001.

                     2. The Director General of Central Reserve Police Force,
                           Govt. of India, Block No.-I, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
                           New Delhi - 110003.

                     3. Shri Vikram Sehgal, I.G.P., Central Reserve Police Force,
                           Govt. of India, Block No.-I, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
                           New Delhi - 110003.

                     4. Shri S.C. Parasar, DIG (Adm), NEZ HQr, Amerigog, 9th Mile,
                           Kamrup Metropolitan, Guwahati, Assam- 781023.
                                                                          ... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.V. MURALIDARAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the appellants :: Mr. M. Devananda, Sr. Adv.

Ms. N. Jyotsana Devi, Adv.

            For the Respondents              ::       Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
                                                      Mr. N. Armananda, Adv.




            WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019)
                                                                     Page |2


Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order ::             21.06.2023

Date of Judgment & Order            ::    04.07.2023


                              JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                                    (CAV)
(M.V. Muralidaran, Acting CJ)

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 17.8.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.681 of 2019, whereby

the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, which was filed to

quash the order dated 16.1.2019 passed by the Director General, CRPF

refusing to consider the representations dated 4.10.2018 and 13.11.2018

submitted by the appellant against the entries of grading "good" in his

Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period from 1.4.2017

to 31.3.2018.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ appeal are as

follows:

The appellant joined the CRPF on 1.12.1994 as Assistant

Commandant and he has always been graded "outstanding" during his

command of units. While he was posted as Commandant (IRLA3998), GC,

CRPF, Langjing, Imphal, he had submitted his APAR for the year ending

2017-2018 on 5.4.2018 to the Reporting Officer, DIGP, GC, Langing. The

said self appraisal was accepted by the Reporting Officer. However, the

Reviewing Authority in Part IV of the APAR downgraded the numerical

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) Page |3

grading given by the Reporting Officer without giving any cogent reason

and the same was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated

16.8.2018. The said letter along with the copy of APAR was served on the

appellant on 28.8.2018 to make a representation against the entry in the

APAR. According to the appellant, by virtue of the downgrading of

numerical grading by the Reviewing Authority, the overall grade of the

appellant has been reduced from "very good" to "good" without giving the

factual reason. The only reason given by the Reviewing Authority for

disagreement with the Reporting Officer is that the grading of the officer is

over assessed.

2.1. The appellant requested extension of time for submission of

the representation against the grading/remarks recorded in APAR through

letter dated 10.9.2018 and 26.9.2018. On 4.10.2018, the appellant has

submitted his representation against the grading/remarks and the same

was not considered as time barred. Again on 13.11.2018, the appellant

submitted another representation against the grading/remarks and the

same was also not considered as time barred by issuance of the order

dated 16.1.2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2019, thereby refusing

to consider the representation, the appellant has filed the writ petition.

2.2. By the impugned order dated 17.8.2022, the learned Single

Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no illegality in refusing

to consider the representations submitted by the appellant and in issuing

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) Page |4

the order dated 16.1.2019. The learned Single Judge also held that the

Reviewing Authority had recorded in writing the reasons for downgrading

the assessment given by the Reporting Officer in the APAR of the appellant

in the year 2017-2018 and the authorities have not violated any provisions

of the relevant guidelines of the Standing Order and have acted well within

the power and jurisdiction. Challenging the said findings of the learned

Single Judge, the appellant has filed the writ appeal.

3. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, the learned

senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the comments on pen picture

written by the Reviewing Authority have been construed as reasons and

justifications for downgradation by the learned Single Judge and the said

comments are mere comments on the pen picture and are not justification

for downgradation of individual attributes. The learned Single Judge

accepted the general comment given by the Reviewing Authority against

the downgradation.

4. Mr. M. Devananda, the learned senior counsel for the

appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the

provision contained in the Standing Order of the CRPF that displeasure is

not a penalty and cannot be considered for denial of promotion. In the

present case, acceptance of the displeasure by the learned Single Judge

as a valid ground for downgradation has the effect of denying promotion to

the appellant and this also goes against the current position of law.

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) Page |5

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted

that no such notice or intimation was given prior to the preparation of the

APAR. The respondents could not exhibit if such notice or intimation had

in fact been given. However, the learned Single Judge accepted the

contention of the respondents that the same was communicated verbally

without any proof.

6. According to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the

learned Single Judge overlooked that only one line has been recorded in

the impugned APAR for the downgradation. The learned Single Judge

failed to consider that on top of providing cogent reasons for downgrading

the APAR, the Reviewing Authority must also exhibit why the Reporting

Officer had awarded inflated grading and why the grading is not

commensurate. The only thing mentioned with regard to the aforesaid in

the APAR is "Quoting of displeasure and grading of officers "very good", I

do not agree in totality. The grading of the officer is over assessed. Has

been over assessed in all attributes brought out in numerical assessment.

Performance has not been commensurate to grading". However, no

justification for recording the same has been provided by the Reviewing

Authority.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant then submitted

that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate and follow the judgment

rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench, which is in gross violation of the law laid

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) Page |6

down by the Apex Court in the case of Dasharath Rupsingh Rathod v. State

of Maharastra, (2014) 9 SCC 129.

8. The learned senior counsel for the appellant next submitted

that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Reviewing

Authority has exceeded his power with respect to his duties for reviewing

of the APAR of the appellant without giving cogent reasons for downgrading

in writing. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the

Reviewing Authority had taken into consideration the displeasure issued by

the higher authorities against the appellant, which is not at all related or

relevant to the period of consideration of the appellant's APAR and

downgraded the grading of the appellant without any justification. He would

submit that in all the years since 2007-2008, the appellant had been graded

either as "outstanding" or "very good" and that downgrading his grade as

"good" in the APAR for the period 2017-2018 is unacceptable. Arguing so,

the learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the order of the

learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition.

9. Per contra, Mr. Kh. Samarjit, the learned DSGI appearing for

the respondents submitted that the entries in the APAR of the appellant

were communicated to him on 16.8.2018 with an instruction that any

representation against the grading in the APAR should be submitted within

a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the APAR. Though the

appellant received the APAR on 28.8.2018, he has failed to submit the

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) Page |7

representation within 15 days and he has submitted his representation only

on 4.10.2018 and thereafter another representation on 13.11.2018 after a

lapse of more than 35 days. Since the representations of the appellant are

time barred, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the same vide order

dated 16.1.2019 taking into consideration the provisions of Standing Order

No.4/2015.

10. Insofar as the argument of the learned senior counsel for the

appellant that without giving any reason, the Reviewing Authority

downgraded the appellant is concerned, the learned DSGI submitted that

sufficient reasons have been given by the Reviewing Authority for

downgrading the assessment of the appellant's performance. In fact, the

appellant has deliberately suppressed his own acts of indiscipline, violation

of orders and misbehavior for which the appellant had been awarded

displeasure and punishment of stoppage of increments after conducting an

enquiry. Since the displeasure relates to the period from 1.4.2017 to

31.3.2018 and the appellant did not challenge the same and accepted the

commission and omission of the misconduct, the Reviewing Authority was

right in downgrading the assessment of the appellant's performance.

11. The learned DSGI argued that if the appellant was not

satisfied with the final grading in the APAR, he ought to have submitted his

representation within the prescribed period of 15 days and having failed to

do so, he cannot blame the respondent authorities for his lapse. Having

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) Page |8

considered all these aspects in proper perspective, the learned Single

Judge dismissed the writ petition. Since the order of the learned Single

Judge is well considered one, there is no need to interfere with the same

and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.

12. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused

the materials available on record.

13. The following facts are not in dispute - The appellant joined

the CRPF on 1.12.1994 as Assistant Commandant and he has been graded

outstanding during his command of units. While he was posted at Langjing

CRPF, on 5.4.2018, the appellant has submitted his APAR for the year

ending 2017-2018 to the Reporting Officer i.e. DIGP, GC, Langjing, Imphal

and the said self appraisal was accepted by the Reporting Officer, however,

the Reviewing Authority of the APAR downgraded the numerical grading

given by the Reporting Officer and the overall grading of the appellant has

been reduced from "very good" to "good". The reason given by the

Reviewing Authority for disagreement with the Reporting Officer and

downgrading of the grades given by him is stated as under:

"Quoting of displeasure and grading officer very good. I do not agree in totality. The grading of the officer is over assessed. In attributes brought out in numerical assessment performance has not been commensurate to grading."

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) Page |9

14. The grading of "good" assessed by the Reviewing Authority in

the APAR was communicated to the appellant under letter dated 16.8.2018

of the Special DG, NEZ, CRPF with a direction to submit a representation

against the entry in the APAR if so desired. It is admitted by the appellant

that the said letter dated 16.8.2018 was received by him on 28.8.2018.

15. It appears that on 10.9.2018, the appellant submitted a letter

to the DG, CRPF, Dte. Genl, CRPF, New Delhi, requesting to grant 15 days

more time for submission of his representation against the APAR grading

for the year 2017-2018. The said letter dated 10.9.2018 of the appellant

reads thus:

"Grading of APAR for the year 2017-2018 has been communicated to me on 28/08/2018 through DIG GC Imphal vide Spl. DG, NEZ, Guwahati letterNo.A.XII- 2/2018-NEZ-PS dated 16/08/2018 (copy enclosed for ready reference.

Since Reviewing/Accepting authority has graded me as "Good", I intent to represent against grading of Reviewing/Accepting authority. To submit proper justification and specific factual observations against grading of Reviewing/Accepting authority, I need 15 days more in addition to given time limit for submission of my representation against grading of Review/Accepting authority.

It is, therefore, requested to kind grand me 15 days more time for submission of my representation against APAR

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 10

grading for the year 2017-2018 for which I shall every grateful to you."

16. Again on 26.9.2018, the appellant sent another letter dated

26.9.2018 to the authority requesting to grant him 15 days further time to

submit his representation against the APAR grading. The said

representation dated 26.9.2018 reads thus:

"In continuation to my application dated 10/09/2018 in connection with time extension for submission of representation against APAR for the year 2017-2018.

Due to heavy work load (i.e. completion of PIS data and verification of character, caste certificate & education certificate) and pressure for booking e-lekha upto 50% by 20.09.2018, I am not able to submit my representation within extended time limit. Since Reviewing Authority/Accepting authority has granted me as "Good", I intent to represent against grading of Reviewing/Accepting authority. To submit proper justification and specific factual observations against grading of Reviewing/Accepting authority, I need 15 days more in addition to given time limit and further extension of 15 days for submission of my representation against grading of Review/Accepting authority.

It is, therefore, requested to kind grand me 15 days more time for submission of my representation against APAR grading for the year 2017-2018 for which I shall every be grateful to you."

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 11

17. It is not in dispute that those two request letters of the

appellant dated 10.09.2018 and 26.9.2018 have not been received by the

authority concerned. The factum of receipt of the said representations has

been stated in the Signal dated 3.10.2018 issued by the Digcent (CR &Vig)

and the same is quoted hereunder:

"SIGNAL

To : Digcent GC IMP Info : Cespol NEZ/Polcent MN From : Digcent (CR&Vig) Dte

No.R.XIII-48/2018-DA-13(APAR) Dated 03/10/2018

U/V (.) Regarding permission for submission of representation against the remarks/grading recorded in the APAR after expiry of scheduled time (.) Shri Munna Kumar Singh, Commandant (IRLA-3998) of GC Imphal has submitted an application dated 10/09.2018 seeking 15 days of additional time for submission of representation against the remarks in the APAR for the year 2015-2016 after expiry of scheduled time (.) Application fo the Officer examined in Dte and it is observed that, Shri Munna Kumar Singh, Commandant (IRLA-3998) received copy of the APAR on 28/08/2018 (.). He submitted application on 10/09/2018 requesting to grant him additional time of 15 days for submission of representation (.) The additional time of 15 days requested by him expired on 25/09/2018 (.) His application was received on 25/09/2018 (.) The additional time requested for by him is over (.) His representation will be examined on receipt of as per rules (.) He may be apprised accordingly."

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 12

18. The adverse remarks recorded were communicated to the

appellant through letter dated 16.8.2018 calling upon the appellant to

submit his representation within 15 days. The said letter along with the copy

of APAR was served on the appellant on 28.8.2018 and the 15 days period

starts from 28.8.2018.

19. As stated supra, on 10.9.2018, the appellant submitted a letter

requesting to give another 15 days time for submission of the

representation. Again on 26.09.2018, he has submitted a letter requesting

to extend the time by a further period of 15 days enabling him to submit the

representation. Finally, on 4.10.2018, the petitioner submitted his

representation against the remarks made in the APAR, followed by another

representation on 13.11.2018. The representations of the appellant were

rejected on the ground that the appellant had submitted the representations

beyond the time stipulated.

20. Technically speaking, if we take the service of the letter dated

16.8.2018 along with copy of the APAR on the appellant on 28.8.2018, the

15 days time granted to the appellant for submission of his representation

expire on 12.09.2018. Since the appellant was busy with his work, on

10.09.2018, the appellant submitted a letter seeking to extend the time

period for another 15 days. If we take the 15 days time from 12.09.2018

i.e. on the expiry of the original 15 days time, the extended 15 days time

expires on 27.09.2018. Stating that he was busy with official work, the

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 13

appellant had submitted another request letter dated 26.9.2018 to further

grant 15 days time to submit his representation. If we take the 15 days time

from 27.09.2018, the extended 15 days time expires on 12.10.2018. As

admitted, the appellant has submitted his representation against the

grading/remarks of the Reviewing Authority on 4.10.2018. On a perusal of

the representation dated 4.10.2018, it is seen that in the very opening

paragraph itself the appellant referred to his two request letters dated

10.9.2018 and 26.9.2018 for extension of time for making the

representation against the grading given in APAR by the Reviewing

Authority. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the representation of the

appellant dated 4.10.2018 is well within the period after the last extended

period of 15 days. However, without seeing the reality, on 29.10.2018, the

representation dated 4.10.2018 was rejected by the respondent authority

on the ground that the same is time barred. On 13.11.2018, the appellant

has submitted another representation against the grading recorded in the

APAR and by the order dated 16.1.2019, the said representation dated

13.11.2018 was also rejected on the ground that there is no provision to

consider representation against grading recorded in the APAR after expiry

of scheduled time.

21. The appellant had time till 12.10.2018 for submission of his

representation after the extended period of time based on the request

submitted by him. In the order rejecting the representation of the appellant

passed by the DIG (CR &Vig) dated 29.10.2018, the said authority has not

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 14

gone into the merits of the grading awarded by the Reviewing Authority and

the authority simply rejected the representation on the ground of delay.

22. As stated supra, the representation dated 4.10.2018 was

rejected basically on the ground that the same has been submitted after the

prescribed period. The conclusion arrived at by the DIG (CR &Vig) that the

representation of the appellant dated 4.10.2018 is after 35 days of the date

of receipt of the letter dated 16.8.2018 cannot be appreciated. The learned

Single Judge has also erred in affirming the view taken by the respondent

authority qua the delay aspect. Since the rejection of the first

representation of the appellant dated 4.10.2018 itself is wrong, the rejection

of the appellant's second representation dated 13.11.2018 is also liable to

be interfered with. In view of the above, we are of the view that the

representation dated 4.10.2018 is well within the prescribed time after

taking into account the two extension request letters submitted by the

appellant. Therefore, the findings of the respondent authority as well as the

learned Single Judge qua the representation of the appellant is time barred

is liable to be interfered with.

23. The appellant has questioned the grading of "good" entered

by the Reviewing Authority in the APAR for the period from 1.4.2017 to

31.3.2018 by contending that though the Reporting Officer accepted the

self-appraisal report of the appellant and recorded his assessment in

numerical figures with regard to assessment of work output, personal

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 15

attributes and functional competency and gave a grading "very good", the

Reviewing Authority without any reason downgraded the assessment as

"good" which is below the benchmark of "very good".

24. The appellant also contended that the Reviewing Authority

has used the displeasure issued by him only for a case related to 2016

which does not form part of the assessment period as a ground for reducing

the overall numerical grading to below the benchmark which has an effect

of making the officer ineligible for promotion and financial upgradation in

NFFU/OGAS.

25. Taking us through paragraph 3.11(i) of the Standing Order,

the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the displeasure is not

a penalty enlisted in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and, therefore,

it cannot be considered for denial of promotion and financial upgradation in

NFFU/OGAS. However, in complete defiance of the Standing Order

No.4/2015, the Reviewing Authority has used the displeasure to downgrade

the numerical grading to make the appellant ineligible for promotion despite

being otherwise eligible. Therefore, the action of the Reviewing Authority

downgrading the numerical grading is erroneous in law.

26. Countering the argument, the learned Additional Solicitor

General argued that only based on the performance and the other related

documents, the Reviewing Authority downgraded the numerical grading

and for the deliberate suppression of his own acts of indiscipline, violation

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 16

of orders and misbehavior, the petitioner was awarded displeasure and

punishment of stoppage of increments.

27. It is pertinent to note that having been dissatisfied with the

grading/remarks recorded in the APAR, the appellant has submitted a

representation dated 4.10.2018 and, as stated supra, the same has been

not considered by the respondent authority, as according to the respondent

authority the same is time barred. Followed by the representation dated

4.10.2018 and its rejection, on 13.11.2018, the appellant has submitted

another representation. The same was also rejected on 16.1.2019 by

holding as under:

"Please refer to your representation dated 13/11/2018 against the remarks/grading recorded in your APAR for the period from 01/04/2017 to 31.03.2018.

Your representation dated 13/11/2018 has been examined in Dte/ It is observed that APAR for the period from 01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018 was communicated to you by SDC, NEZ vide letter No.A.XII-2/2018-NEZ-PSdated 16/08/2018 and the same was received by you on 28/08/2018. As per para 6 and 13(iv) of the S/O.04/2015, the representation against the grading in APAR for the period from 01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018 should have been submitted by your within 15 days from the date of receipt of the APAR, whereas you have submitted your representation on 04/10/2018 i.e. after 35 days instead of the stipulated time of 15 days. Accordingly, your earlier representation dated 04/10.2018 has not been considered

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 17

by the Competent Authority being time barred. You have not brought out any new facts in your representation dated 13/11/2018.

3. Therefore, it is intimated that, there is no provision to consider representation against grading/remarks recorded in APAR after expiry of schedule time."

28. As stated supra, the Reviewing Authority has used the

displeasure issued as a ground for reducing the overall numerical grading

to below the benchmark which has an effect of making the appellant

ineligible for promotion. According to the appellant, the issue on which the

displeasure has been issued relates to the previous period i.e. the period

before the reporting period and, therefore, it becomes infructuous in view

of Para 3.11 (iii) of the Standing Order No.4/2015 and using the said

displeasure for denying promotion is in violation of the Standing Order. We

are of the view that this aspect has not been properly dealt with by the

Reviewing Authority while issuing the impugned order dated 16.1.2019.

29. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the

system of APAR has two principal objectives, namely (i) improve the

performance of subordinate in his present job; and, (ii) assess the

potentialities of the subordinate and prepare him through appropriate

feedback and guidance for future possible opportunities in service. The

basic philosophy underlying APAR is that both the superiors and his

subordinates should be necessarily aware of the ultimate goal of the

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 18

organization, which can be achieved through the joint efforts of both of

them.

30. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to

Para 5 of the APAR under the head of pen-picture of the Officer reported

by the Reporting Officer, which reads thus:

"Adhikari apne saunpe gaye dayitvon ko pura karne kaa prayas karte hain. Prashashnik karyon kia anybhav hai. Reportadheen Awadhi ke dauran adhikari ka karya evam vyahar bahoot achchha raha."

31. However, in Para 6 of the APAR the Reviewing Authority

stated as under:

"Behaviour of officer is not commensurate to his rank and seniority. He is belligerent and arrogant in his general behavior. Despite repeated warning from seniors in the past has not brought about change in his behavior towards subordinates. Needs to bring about perceptible change in his behavior to control his temper. Has a tendency to loose talk. Not fit for independent command."

32. In the instant case, nothing is on record to show that any

advisory/warning/displeasure/penalty with regard to the duties performed

by the appellant and/or behavior for the period of assessment has been

issued by the Initiating Officer and, in fact, the records reveal that the

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 19

Initiating Officer has always praised the work of the appellant and assessed

him as "very good".

33. Primarily, the impugned rejection order dated 16.1.2019 was

issued on the ground that the representation against the grading in APAR

was submitted belatedly, i.e., after the expiry of schedule time. As stated

supra, the first representation of the appellant is well within time and hence

that the respondent authority ought not to have rejected the representation

dated 4.10.2018. Resultantly, the order dated 16.1.2019 thereby rejecting

the representation of the appellant dated 13.11.2018 will go. Since the

impugned order dated 16.1.2019 does not deal with the merits of the

grading and it only deals with the time period for submission of the

representation and the said time limit has been clarified by us in the

preceding paragraphs to the effect that the representation of the appellant

dated 4.10.2018 is well with the prescribed time limit, we are of the view

that in order to consider the claim of the appellant afresh qua the order/letter

dated 16.8.2018 issued by the Spl. DG, NEZ, Guwahati, the matter is liable

to be remanded to the authority concerned.

34. In the result, the judgment and order of the learned Single

Judge dated 17.8.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.681 of 2019 is set aside and

the writ appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned

for considering the claim of the appellant afresh qua the order/letter dated

16.8.2018 issued by the Spl. DG, NEZ, Guwahati. While considering the

WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019) P a g e | 20

claim of the appellant, the authority concerned is required to look into the

representations of the appellant dated 4.10.2018 and 13.11.2018

respectively and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after

affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The aforesaid exercise

is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.

                     JUDGE                         ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

     FR/NFR

    Sushil




WA No. 100 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 681 of 2019)