-1- 2025:CGHC:45209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5332 of 2017  Dhaneshwar Singh Sidar S/o Shri Mahettar Singh Sidar Aged About 36 Years Presently Working As Constable In S T F Baghera District Durg Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Police Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director , General Of Police Police Headquarter Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Director General Of Police, Naxal Operation, Police Headquarter Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Additional Director General C A F Police Headquarter Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Inspector General C A F Police Headquarter Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Superintendent Of Police S T F Baghera , District Durg Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 7. Semala Satyam Presently Working As Constable In S T F Baghera , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8. Vimlesh Sinha , Presently Working As Head Constable S T F Baghera , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.09.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the concerned department pertaining to the case of petitioner. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.09 11:27:43 +0530 -2- 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus whereby directing the respondent No. 2 & 3 to award out of turn promotion with one rank to the petitioner as like respondent No. 7 to 8 on account of participating successfully in Anti Naxal Operation which was occurred on 21/08/2016. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Constable. He participated in a joint naxal operation along with the STF, DF and CRPF falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Arrabore, District Sukma on 21.08.2016. He would submit that an FIR was registered as Crime No.04/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; and Section 3, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act against 10 to 15 naxalites. He would further submit that respondents No. 7 and 8, who had also participated in the said operation, have already been granted out-of-turn promotion, but the name of the petitioner has not been considered. He would contend that a direction may be issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion in accordance with Police Regulations 56 and 70, and in the light of the judgment of passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Brajesh Kumar Tiwari (Writ Appeal No.214/2025, decided on 28.03.2025). 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner is to be considered by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and practice. Learned State counsel would also submit that the petitioner never raised demand for out-of-turn promotion. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. -3- 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5) Considering the above facts, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation before respondents No. 2 and 3 seeking out-of-turn promotion in accordance with Police Regulations 56 and 70, and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to consider and decide the said representation strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the judgments/orders passed in similar cases, including the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Brajesh Kumar Tiwari (supra). 6) The decision on such representation shall be taken by the competent authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant