1 / 3 2026:CGHC:6208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1296 of 2026 Sudhanshu Dwivedi S/o Late Kamleshwar Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 23 Years Occupation - Constable (M) R/o Parauhantola Kalwari Village - Post - Kalwari P.S. Garh, Tahsil - Tyothar District - Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Police District - Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner who is working as Constable (M) under the respondent authorities is being denied from ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.07 11:26:35 +0530 2 / 3 grant of ad-hoc pay increase which has been granted to other similarly placed persons but not of Ministerial cadre. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance involved in present writ petition has already been adjudicated upon in favor of the other similarly placed persons vide WP(s) No. 4563 of 2006 [Abdul Nawab Khan & Others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & 2 Others], decided on 07.05.2009. The judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (s) No. 4563 of 2006 has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court also. Subsequently, another batch of petitioner filed petition bearing Writ Petition No. 4523 of 2014 [Francis Xavier Back & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others], and the said writ petition also got disposed of on 03.07.2015, granting the benefit which has been extended to the other similarly placed persons in the light of decision rendered in case of Abdul Nawab Khan (supra). Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that the respondents may further be directed to consider the case of petitioner also in similar line. 3. Counsel for the State does not oppose the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner. 4. Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of in similar line as in the case of Francis Xavier Back & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 03.07.2015 in WPS No. 4523 of 2014. 5. In case subject to verification, if the petitioner is found eligible, the relief as sought for may be released to him forthwith and if respondents find that petitioner is not entitled, he may be suitably intimated in this regard giving reasons for his non-entitlement. 3 / 3 6. Let this exercise be done within a period of 90 days from the date of the petitioner presenting the certified copy of this order before the respondents authorities. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza