1 2025:CGHC:9142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4347 of 2018 1 - Ahmad Husain S/o Late Manauer Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Chunchuna ( Charahu ) Post - Sabag Tahsil - Kusami Presently R/o Near Mission Road Balrampur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Balrampur District Balrampur - Ramanuganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General Of Police Sarguja Range Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police , Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanuganj Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Advocate holding brief of Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 ANNEXURE P/1. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3 ANNEXURE P/2. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 10.3 That, this Honble court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to re-consider the application for grant of benefit of companionate appointment under the rehabilitation policy dated 20.10.2004. 10.4 Any other reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that on 19.11.2008 at about 6.00 am, the father of the petitioner lost his life due to a Naxal attack. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR was registered. The Superintendent of Police issued a certificate confirming that the petitioner’s family is a Naxal-affected family and a recommendation was made to extend benefits of the rehabilitation scheme. According to the policy, one member of the family was entitled to government job, agricultural land, residential land etc. The petitioner moved applications for the grant of appointment on 17.8.2016, 20.12.2016 and 25.5.2017. A writ petition was also filed and a direction was issued to respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. However, the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj vide order dated 25.11.2017, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that his elder brother had already been provided government job to the post of Peon in the office of the Collector, Balrampur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is eligible and qualified for appointment against any vacant and sanctioned post whereas his elder brother was appointed on 16.6.2014. She would contend that the representations/ 3 applications moved by the petitioner remained pending for a considerable period, and he was not offered an appointment. She would contend that the order passed by respondent No.4 may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that according to the Naxal Affected Policy, 2004, the elder brother of the petitioner has already been offered an appointment and the order of appointment was issued on 16.6.2014. He would further submit that according to Clause 21 of the Policy, 2004, only one member of the family is entitled to an appointment. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the elder brother of the petitioner has already been offered an appointment according to Clause 21 of the Policy, 2004, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi