Sanjib Biswas vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the corrigendum dated 30th April, 2016 and for setting aside down-grading of ACR from 'very good' to 'Average'.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner has been discharging his duties under the respondent No.3, Tripura Legislative Assembly as Superintendent under SC category. By a communication dated 21.03.2016, the petitioner was apprised by the Additional Secretary that he was graded as 'very good'. But surprisingly the said Additional Secretary issued corrigendum dated 30.04.2016 informing the petitioner that his ACR grading should be read as 'average' instead of 'very good' as reflected in the letter dated 21.03.2016. After receipt of this communication dated 30.04.2016, the petitioner had submitted a representation for review of his down grading of ACR as 'average' by letter dated 02.05.2016. Having found no response from the respondent No.3, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

The Respondent No.3 i.e. the Tripura Legislative Assembly by filing counter affidavit at Para 18 has stated as under:-

"18. That, the averments made in paragraph-12 of the instant writ petition, the answering respondents submits that, Review petition of the petitioner dated 02- 05-2016 is under process as review report is still pending for submission by the then reviewing authority (the then Addl. Secretary) who reviewed earlier the ACR grading of the petitioner for the year 2014-15 during which the petitioner worked under him which occurred before joining of Sri Chakma. In the meantime the petitioner filed the present writ petition which is not at all maintainable as the matter is premature".

Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed the file relating to the ACR of the petitioner as asked by this Court. I have perused the same meticulously.

In view of the clear statement made by the respondent No.3 that the process of review is still pending, I direct the respondent No.3 to complete the process of review as per rule within a period of two months from the date the petitioner shall furnish the copy of this order to the respondent No.3.

The entire ACR file is returned back to learned Advocate, Mr. N. Majumder.

With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed.