Dashrath v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3063 of 2017

1. Dashrath S/o Danshu, Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Assistant Sub Inspector (M), Under The Officer Of Respondent No. 3, Resident Of Ward No. 08 , Gudipara, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. Shivshankar Prasad Sonpakar, S/o Shri Harish Chandra Sonpakar, Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Assistant Sub Inspector (M), Under The Office Of Respondent No. 3, Resident Of Badkapara, Ward No. 15, Shiv Chowk, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police Department, Mahandi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Secretary, Finance, Mahandi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Director General Of Police, Home Guards, (State Disaster Resolve Force) S D R F, Head Quarter, Sector 19, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Additional A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 14/07/2017 Heard.

1. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite order passed by this Court in WPS No.4563/2006 and the order passed by Division Bench in W.A.No.426/2011 against which, the Supreme Court has dismissed SLP (Civil) No.13274/2013, the benefits made admissible to the similarly placed persons vide order dated 03-12-2013 issued by the Home Department, has not been extended to the petitioners. He would submit that the Director General of Police has already issued a communication on 28-09-2013 for extending similar benefits to all the similarly placed persons, but yet necessary orders have not been

passed.

2. Learned State counsel would submit that in the event, the petitioners submit fresh representation before the competent authority, their case shall be scrutinized and if after due verification, it is found that their case is similar, they shall be entitled to all such benefits available to them in accordance with law.

3. In view of above, this petition is finally disposed off with a direction that in the event, the petitioners submit fresh representation before the competent authority claiming similar treatment as has been extended to the previous set of petitioners in whose favour Annexure P-1 has been passed, within a period of one month from today, the competent authority shall scrutinize their case and if on verification, it is found that the petitioners are identically placed, necessary orders in this regard be passed in accordance with law within a further period of two months.

4. If any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha