JUDGMENT AND ORDER : The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner to provide the benefits of fixation of salary and other service benefits etc., counting the past services rendered by the petitioner in Tripura Border Wings Home Guard Battalion in the year 1977-81. 2. Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Majumder, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The grievances of the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Part time Guardman under Tripura Border Wings, Home Guard Battalion and had discharged his duties sincerely with full dedication and without any blemish. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from Tripura Border Wing, Home Guard Battalion w.e.f. 05.02.1981 and thereafter he joined in the Tripura Police in the year 05.02.1981. Further grievances of the petitioner are that similarly situated persons of the Tripura Border Wings Home Guard Battalion, approached the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, by means of Civil Rule 119 of 1981 for allowing them benefits of service as police personnel for the period they had served in the Border Wings Home Guards Battalion and that proceeding came to its end by the judgment dated 22.07.1988. 4. The said judgment and order has been affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition as filed by the State. Some of the petitioners of Civil Rule No. 119 of 1981 subsequently filed another writ petition being WP(C). No. 384 of 2010 for their absorption by allowing them benefits for their absorption from the Border Wings Home Guards Battalion to Tripura Police Organization. By the judgment and order dated 02.06.2014 delivered in PW(C). No. 384 of 2010, this Court has observed as under: “......The writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall make representation to their authority within 30 (thirty) days from today claiming the benefits sought in this writ petition and the representation shall consist of relevant documents and chest No. etc. to facilitate the authorities to consider the representation and in the event such a representation is made, the respondents are directed to dispose the same within 3(three) months from the date of making the representation with a speaking order and to communicate their decision to the petitioners in writing....” 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was having the chest No. 774641. The petitioners of WP(C). There is no dispute that the petitioner was having the chest No. 774641. The petitioners of WP(C). No. 384 of 2010 had filed the representation to the Director General of Police, Tripura in terms of the judgment and order dated 02.06.2014 and in turn, the Director General of Police, Tripura by the order under No. 2311-17/R-82/DGP/LC/2010 dated 14th November, 2014, has allowed the benefits as sought for by those petitioners. 6. It transpires from the said order dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) that the benefits of the past service was given notionally from the date of enrollment in the Border Wings Home Guards Battalion till 02.06.2014, i.e. the date of the said judgment. But the petitioner was not given the said benefit as he was not one of the petitioners in WP(C). No. 384 of 2010 aud the petitioner herein did not make any representation to the authority, for which his case was not considered. 7. The State respondents by way of filing counter affidavit admitted the facts regarding the decision of this Court in WP(C). No. 384 of 2010. It is also stated that the petitioner has yet not approached the authority for considering his case. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is similarly situated with the writ petitioners of WP(C). No. 384 of 2010, WP(C). No. 373 of 2011 and WP(C). No. 309 of 2015 8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant writ petition can be disposed of as the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of this Court passed earlier in WP(C). No. 309 of 2015 as well as WP(C). No. 384 of 2010. 9. Mr. Majumder, learned State counsel fairly submits that the instant writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation to the respondent No. 2, Director General of Police within a period of 2 weeks and the DGP will dispose of the same within a reasonable period. 10. No. 384 of 2010. 9. Mr. Majumder, learned State counsel fairly submits that the instant writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation to the respondent No. 2, Director General of Police within a period of 2 weeks and the DGP will dispose of the same within a reasonable period. 10. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a simple direction to the petitioner to file his representation along with a copy of this order to the Director General of Police within a period of 2 weeks from today and the Director General of Police shall consider the same within 2 months from the date of receipt of the representation and while the case of the petitioner will be considered, the authority may also take note of the decision of this Court in WP(C). No. 384 of 2010 as well as WP(C). No. 309 of 2015. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.