J. P. Dubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3205 of 2016
1. J. P. Dubey S/o Late Shri K.P. Dubey, Aged About 66 Years Occupation Retired Inspector ( M ) R/o Bharat Society, Pachpedi Naka, P.S. Takrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. S.K. Kshatri S/o D.M. Kshatri Aged About 56 Years Occupation (M) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Nirbhay Kumar Singh, S/o Siyaram Singh, Aged About 27 Years Occupation Assistant Sub Inspector (M ) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Smt. Rekha Sahu, W/o Late Ram Kumar Sahu, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Assistant Sub Inspector (M ) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Smt. Kamla Kapdi, W/o Late P. Kapdi, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Assistant Sub Inspector (M ) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6. Anubhav Aren John, S/o Late Rajesh John, Aged About 24 Years Occupation Assistant Sub Inspector (M ) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
7. Suman Yadav, D/o Om Prakash Yadav, Aged About 26 Years Occupation Head Constable (M ) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
8. Smt. Yamuna Singh Rajput, D/o Ghanshyam Singh Rajput, Aged About 24 Years Occupation Constable (M ) Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home And Police Affairs And Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. The Joint Director, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate for the State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 27/07/2016 Heard on admission.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is a retired Inspector (M) and petitioners 2 to 8 are working under the Superintendent of Police. 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.
3.
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. 4.
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. 5.
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 Deepti