1 2025:CGHC:43824-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 76 of 2025 Sanyukt Police Karmchari Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh Through Ujjwal Diwan S/o Gaurishankar Diwan Aged About 38 Yrs. R/o Police Line Rudri, PO Rudri, District -Dhamtari (C.G.) Pincode - 493776 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chef Ministers Office Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) Pincode -492002 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Home Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur (C.G.) Pincode – 492002 3 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh (Dgp), Police Headquarter Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G) Pincode - 492002 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashikant Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) / State : Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/08/2025 1 Heard Mr. Shashikant Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents. 2 By this public interest litigation petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): 2 “10.1. To kindly grant Order, or Direction, directing the Respondents to forthwith implement the Cabinet decision regarding the abolition of Assistant Constable posts and the complete absorption of all Assistant Constables into the District Strike Force (DSF) cadre without imposing arbitrary conditions such as a 9-year service requirement. 10.2. To kindly grant order or Direction, directing the Respondents to grant District Strike Force (DSF) personnel a grade pay of ₹1900, at par with regular Constables in the Chhattisgarh Police Department, with retrospective effect, in adherence to the principle of "equal pay for equal work." 10.3. To kindly grant Order, or Direction, directing the Respondents to immediately formulate and implement a policy for compassionate appointments for the families of deceased District Strike Force (DSF) personnel, similar to the benefits previously available to Assistant Constables, and to consider all pending applications for compassionate appointment from the date of their submission. 10.4. To kindly grant Order, or Direction, directing the Respondents to grant seniority to District Strike Force (DSF) personnel from their initial date of appointment as Assistant Constables, considering their prior service as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Naxal operations. 10.5. To kindly grant Order, or Direction, directing the Respondents to ensure that Assistant Constables and District Strike Force (DSF) personnel receive all benefits, allowances, and facilities at par with regular District Police Force personnel, in line with the principle of "equal pay for equal work." 10.6. To kindly grant any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a duly elected Chairman of the association “Police Kramchari Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh” which is a registered association. The objectives of the association include working for the welfare and betterment of the police personnel and their family members and pursuing their legal rights before the appropriate forum. The State Government, through its Cabinet, had taken a decision to abolish the post of Assistant Constable (Sahayak Arakshak) and to 3 absorb all such personnel into the newly created District Strike Force (DSF) cadre. This decision bearing No. F-3/20/2022/Griha-2 dated 22.07.2022 reportedly also involved the creation of 3736 new DSF posts by abolishing 3096 Assistant Constable posts. Despite this Cabinet decision, the Police Department has not fully implemented the same. The Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, in response to an RTI query dated 28.07.2024, stated that "the gazette notification has not been published regarding the abolition of the post of Assistant Constable and the creation of new posts in the DSF cadre". The complete absorption of all Assistant Constables into the DSF cadre has not occurred. Instead, arbitrary conditions, such as a 9-year service requirement for Assistant Constables to be integrated into DSF, are being imposed, which is contrary to the spirit of the Cabinet decision. Furthermore it is contended that District Strike Force (DSF) personnel are being denied appropriate pay scales. While Constables in the Chhattisgarh Police Department commence with a grade pay of Rs. 1900, DSF personnel are allegedly being given a lower grade pay of ₹1800, which constitutes a violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, in its RTI response dated 09.10.2024 acknowledged that DSF personnel are being provided salaries and allowances as per rules, but this does not address the grievance of disparity with regular Constables. 4 Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a serious concern as there is denial of compassionate appointments to the family members of deceased District Strike Force (DSF) personnel. While Assistant Constables were previously eligible for compassionate appointments, DSF personnel are currently not receiving this benefit. The Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, has confirmed in its RTI response 4 dated 08.10.2024 that a letter was sent to the Government on 17.01.2024 seeking guidance regarding compassionate appointments for deceased DSF personnel. However, in a subsequent RTI response dated 27.09.2024, regarding information on responsible officers for denying compassionate appointments, the information provided was "Nil". This indicates a lack of clear policy and accountability. The Assistant Constables, who were initially appointed as Special Police Officers (SPOs) during anti-Naxal operations, were at the forefront of combat operations. Following a Supreme Court order, they were subsequently designated as Assistant Constables with temporary employment and lower wages. Despite performing duties equivalent to or even more arduous than regular District Police Force personnel in naxal-affected areas, Assistant Constables and DSF personnel are not being accorded seniority from their initial appointment as Assistant Constables and are not receiving equal pay, benefits, or facilities, which is a clear violation of their rights. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that this public interest litigation petition is not maintainable as under the garb of a public interest, the petitioner, who claims himself to be the Chairman of the Association, is trying to espouse the grievance which essentially falls under the domain of service jurisprudence. Even otherwise, if any government servant is aggrieved by any of the Notification/order of the State Government, it is for him to personally approach the competent Court of law and not through any association. 6 On a specific query as to how this petition could be termed as public interest litigation, Mr. Chouhan submits that the grievance of many 5 similarly situated persons are involved and there is no element of private grievance. The petitioner being the Chairman of the Association is authorised to raise the grievance of the association and as such, this petition is maintainable. 7 Be that as it may, from bare perusal of the relief sought in this petition, it is evident that there is no element of public interest involved and the same is essentially related to service conditions. The nature of relief(s) sought for are such which involves monetary benefits, grant of compassionate appointment, fixation of seniority etc. which cannot be considered and decided in a public interest litigation petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner, who claims himself to be the Chairman of the Police Karmachari Evam Pariwar Kalyan Sangh, is also a Police Constable and in such circumstance, and there is personal interest of the petitioner involved in this petition and as such, this petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 8 In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in 2004 (3) SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering few decisions, on the aspect of public interest litigation, observed as follows: "4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of 6 persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in the Janta Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary [1992 (4) SCC 305] and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R.Srinivas v. R.M.Premchand (1994 (6) SCC 620). 9 In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find that this is a genuine public interest litigation espousing the cause of general public and this petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, if any individual has any grievance, he may take recourse to law before the appropriate forum, if so advised. 10 The security amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited for wasting the Court’s precious time. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.29 19:24:31 +0530