Bharat Lal Dhruw And Others v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.2334 of 2009 1.

Bharat Lal Dhruw, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Dhruw, aged about 43 years, Posted as Company Commander Special Task Force, Durg (CG), R/o Q.No.17/34, 7th Battalion, CAF, Bhilai, District Durg(CG).

2.

Dharmendra Singh Bais S/o Late Shri Bansh Raj Singh, aged about 37 years, Posted As Platun Commander Special Task Forest, Baghera, Durg (Cg), R/o Q.No.NGO-25, 2nd Battalion C.A.F, Sakri, Bilaspur (CG) 3.

Diril Prakash Bara S/o Shri Selebester Bara, aged about 38 years, Posted As Company Commander, Special Task Force, Baghera, Durg R/oVillage Kharakona (Bijapara) Post Bargidih, Distt. Surguja (CG) 4.

Kushal Chand Toppo S/o Shri Francis Toppo, aged about 36 years, Posted As Company Commander 12 Battalion Ramanjuganj (CG) R/o Q.R.

Ngo-06, 2 Battalion C.A.F.Sakari Bilaspur (CG) All employees of HAWK FORCE, Petitioners belonging to different Battalion.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Home, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG).

2. State Of M.P. Through The Secretary Department Of Home Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Mp)

3. Director General Of Police Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (MP)

4. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur (CG). --- Respondents For Petitioners :

Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate For State :

Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 14/02/2017

(1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have made representation before respondent authorities for grant of Naxlite Operation Risk Allowance but as the same has not been considered and granted to them.

(3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 4 submits that the present petitioners were never posted as Platoon Commanders in the Hawk Force, therefore, they are not entitled to get the Naxlite Operation Risk Allowance. (4) Since the petitioners' representation is pending consideration before the respondent authorities, therefore, respondents No.1 & 4 are directed to take decision on the pending representation of the petitioners in accordance with law preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file additional representation, if any before respondents No.1 & 4 to establish their claim. (5) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-