WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court
WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court
WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
8<br />
1. please refer to your letter No PERS/MNB/AR-<br />
175/03/09 dated 03 rd Oct, 2003 addressed to<br />
Hon’ble President Government of India, Rastrapati<br />
Bhawan, New Delhi with copy to Hon’ble Home<br />
Minister and Hon’ble Law Minister, New Delhi.<br />
2. It is for kind information that your case has been<br />
examined in detail. As per the existing policy vide<br />
Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No.<br />
25013/14/77-Estt(A) Dated 05 Jan 78, 25013/30/85-<br />
Estt(A) dated 7/8 August 85 and GoM(Group of<br />
Ministers) reported on “ REFORMING THE NATIONAL<br />
SECURITY SYSTEM” the case was placed before the<br />
Review Committee to asses the suitability for<br />
retention in service beyond the age of 50 years. The<br />
Review Committee had not considered your further<br />
retention in service beyond 50 years of age and as<br />
such the you were sent on pre-mature retirement<br />
from service under FR 56(j).<br />
3. In view of above, you can not be re-instated in<br />
service as requested for.<br />
Sd/-(KK Chopra)<br />
Colonel, Colonnel(Military Secretary)<br />
For Director General, Assam Rifles.<br />
Copy to:<br />
Shri A Samuel for information please<br />
Under Secretary(P), President’s Secretariat<br />
Public-1 Section, Rastrapati Bhawan<br />
New Delhi 110004<br />
The Secretary to the Govt of India do<br />
(Pers III)<br />
Ministry of Home Affairs<br />
North Block, New Delhi-110001”<br />
The above order makes it clear that the authority<br />
considered the submission of the appellant petitioner and<br />
rejected the same. In our considered opinion, for the reasons<br />
set forth above, the decision so taken by the appropriate<br />
authority does not call for interference.<br />
8. Let us now come to the other part of the appellant<br />
petitioner‟s case i.e. non-consideration of his promotion by<br />
the respondents in the year 1998 alongwith his other batch<br />
mates. Learned Single Judge did not record any observation