Raman Kumar Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3110 of 2017

1. Raman Kumar Sinha S/o Rameshwar Sinha, Aged About 29 Years Occupation Assistant Sub Inspector ( M ) Under The District Commandent, Home Guard, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

2. Rupesh Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri Jagdish Dewangan, Aged About 25 Years Occupation Assistant Sub Inspector ( M ) Under The District Commandent, Home Guard, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

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

3. Director General Of Police, Home Guards, ( Statedisaster Resolve Force ) S D R F, Head Quarter, Sector 19, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For State :

Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Additional Advocate General S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 18/07/2017 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 cases shall be

-2scrutinized and if after due verification, it is found that their cases are 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 petitioner in whose favour Annexure P-2 has been passed, within a period of one month from today, the competent authority shall scrutinize their cases 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) Judge Praveen