Smt. Elsa Tandon v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3907 of 2016 Smt. Elsa Tandon W/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon, Aged About 34 Years Occupation Constable (M) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police Janjgir P.S. Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home And Police Affairs And Finance, Mahanadi Bhwan, New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur Chahttisgarh

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents Shri Palash Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Gary Mukhopadhyaya, Dy.G.A. for the State. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 22/08/2016 Heard on admission.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working in the Police Department as Constable (M). The grievance of the petitioner 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 petitioner. 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. 3.

Learned State counsel would submit that in the event, the petitioner submits

fresh representation before the competent authority, her case shall be scrutinized and if after due verification, it is found that her case is similar, she shall be entitled to all such benefits available to her in accordance with law. 4.

In view of above, this petition is finally disposed off with a direction that in the event, the petitioner 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 her case and if on verification, it is found that the petitioner is identically placed, necessary orders in this regard be passed in accordance with law within a further period of two months. 5.

If any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, she would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti