Shyam Sunder Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3637 of 2021

1. Shyam Sunder Sahu S/o Ishwar Lal Sahu Aged About 37 Years Occupation Service, Posted As Nagar Sainik, Rajnandgaon In The Office Of District Commandant Nagar Sainik, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Additional Director General (Home Guard) Nagar Sena, Fire Brigade And Emergency Services And Sdrf, Chhattisgarh Sector 18, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Director Training Operation, Nagar Sena, Fire Brigade And Emergency Services And State Disaster Response Force, (Sdrf), Chhattisgarh Sector 18, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. The Divisional Commandant Nagar Sena And Sdrf Raipur Cum President Of The Committee, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. The District Commandant Nagar Sena, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh

6. The District Commandant Nagar Sena, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Rakesh Pandey along with Shri Varunendra Mishra, Advocates.

For State : Shri Suyash Dhar, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15/07/2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner is the action on the part of the respondents in holding the petitioner ineligible to be part of State Disaster Response Force (SDRF).

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now his grievance would be redressed if the writ petition be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the concerned Authorities who inturn may consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merits in

-2accordance with the rules, regulations, circulars and policies governing the field.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents meanwhile have also reconsidered the case of a couple of similarly placed persons who were also declared ineligible vide the said impugned order Annexure P/1.

4. Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has sought for, the writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner if it so made within a period of 15 days from today in accordance with law and policy governing the field. The Authorities would also bear-in-mind the decision taken by the respondents in-connection-with other similarly placed persons who were declared ineligible along with the petitioner vide the same impugned order.

5. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge