1 2025:CGHC:29675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2696 of 2018 1 - Smt. Saraswati Sahu W/o W/o Likesh Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Lajoda Tahsil Pharsgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nayar Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Police Head Quarter Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Lalbagh, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Of Police, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Superintendent Of Police Bastar, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 8 - Collector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr.Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/07/2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records with regard to the petitioner. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 09/12/2017 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur by which the employment in the police department was rejected. (iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the Rehabilitation Scheme for Naxalite affected person and give employment to the petitioner as per the scheme. (iv) Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. (v) Cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 31.10.1998, the petitioner lodged an FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 323 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act against 12 named Naxalite persons alleging that they committed the murder of her brother and also kidnapped and brutally treated her. He would also submit that the petitioner was set free and thereafter she joined as a “Secret Soldier” under the respondent authorities from 24.04.1999 and worked there till 20.01.2003. He would contend that the petitioner applied for service as per her qualification being a naxalite affected person and a secret soldier in the police department. He would further contend that the department vide order dated 09.12.2017 rejected the application on the ground that 3 no record was available to prove the fact that the petitioner was providing secret information to the police against Naxals. He would also contend that according to the order issued by the Home Department, State of Chhattisgarh dated 16.11.2015, naxals affected and secret soldiers are entitled to be considered for employment. He would also submit that respondent No.1 issued another order on 20.10.2004 which provides for the rehabilitation and other benefits to naxal-affected persons. He would refer to clause 16 of the Policy dated 20.10.2004 which states that if any person is naxal affected, his or her name may be considered for appointment in the Police Department or Home Guard. He would further argue that the persons killed by Naxalites would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also contended that vide letter dated 09.07.2014, the petitioner was called by the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur along with relevant documents for rehabilitation purposes. It is also argued that vide letter dated 25.08.2015, the Assistant Inspector General of Police issued a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range to consider the claim of the petitioner. He would also argue that despite several communications between the higher police officials, no decision has been taken. He would state that the representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.12.2017 by the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur on the ground that the petitioner is a sister of one Leekesh Sahu, who was killed by the Naxalites but she has already married and at present, she is not a member of the family of the deceased, therefore, she is not entitled. He would pray that the present petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to extend the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme. -4- 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a secret soldier but she was not very diligent in the duties assigned to her and her activities were found suspicious, accordingly, she was removed from services on 20.01.2003. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner was placed before the Collector, District Narayanpur to provide employment and it was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2015 but the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition and thus, it attained finality. He would also submit that the petitioner has performed marriage and now she is a member of another family, and thus, she is not a member of the Naxal-affected family accordingly, she is not entitled to employment. He would contend that the claim of the petitioner for employment was considered by the Superintendent of Police, District Narayanpur according to the Rehabilitation Policy dated 16.11.2015 and the same was rejected in light of Clauses 11 & 16 of the Rehabilitation Policy. Mr. Bajpayee would further contend that during the employment of the petitioner as a secret soldier, she failed to show devotion and honesty and therefore, she was removed from her services on 20.01.2003 and she never challenged the said order too. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim employment on the ground that she was a secret soldier. He would also submit that with regard to the Rehabilitation Policy, the matter has already been referred to the higher authorities for consideration and the same is evident from the letter dated 19.10.2015. He would lastly submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also 5 perused the documents available on the record. 5. The petitioner has claimed employment on two counts :(i) she is a naxal affected person and (ii), she was appointed as a secret soldier. 6. The claim of the petitioner for employment on the ground that she was appointed as a secret soldier, was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 19.10.2015. 7. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for employment being a naxal affected person, the matter has already been referred to the State of Chhattisgarh, Home Department for necessary action vide order dated 19.10.2015. 8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2017 only whereby her claim with regard to the employment was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur on the ground that after marriage, she does not remain a member of a naxal affected family. 9. The order as well as the return filed by the State would show that the petitioner during her deployment as a secret soldier, was not very much diligent about her duties and her activities were suspicious. She was removed from services on 20.01.2003 and she has not challenged the said order. As the petitioner was removed from services, she cannot claim employment on the ground that earlier she was appointed as a secret soldier. 10. With regard to the benefits of the rehabilitation policy for the naxal- affected persons, the Collector has already forwarded the matter to the State Government to take appropriate action according to the Rehabilitation Policy. -6- 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 09.12.2017 (Annexure P/1), therefore, the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur whereby the claim of the petitioner for employment has been rejected, is hereby affirmed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to rehabilitation as per the direction issued in the order dated 09.12.2017. 12. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha