1 2026:CGHC:14352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2844 of 2022  Umashankar Shivhare S/o Suraj Prasad Shivhare Aged About 31 Years R/o Mou Road, Ward No.12, Mehgaon, Bhind (Mp) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary Department Of Home New Delhi. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Director General Of CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 4. Directorate General Of Police, PHQ Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. 6. Commandent 231 Battalion, CRPF, Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For U.O.I./respondents No. 1, 3 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, C.G.C. & 6 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.27 14:16:17 +0530 2 pleased to quash/ set-aside the impugned instructions of the respondents. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to fulfill the compensation by additional and enhanced grant of Rs. 12 lacs in addition to the Rs. 8 lacs granted to the petitioner under the aforesaid scheme 2008. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to pass any writ, order or direction to the respondents in the circumstances of the case with cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Constable under the respondent No. 6. At the relevant time, he was posted under C/231 Battalion, Kondapara Camp. He would submit that on 27.07.2016, the petitioner along with two other Constable suffered severe injuries on account of IED explosion. He would contend that the left leg of the petitioner was badly shattered, and therefore, said leg was amputated below knee and in the right leg steel rod has been inserted. He would contend that the petitioner is not capable to perform his duty. He would contend that according to circular issued by Home Department, Raipur dated 02.09.2013, the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs, but the respondent authorities have granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs only. He would submit that the matter of the petitioner was referred to Director General of Police and sanction has been accorded in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 28.09.2022, but till date no decision has been taken by the said authority. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the Director General of Police to decide the claim of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha would submit that the disability of the petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board, wherein, it was found to 3 the extent of 80%. He would submit that the petitioner did not submit disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, therefore, decision has not been taken yet. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Ms. Anmol Sharma would support the contention made by Mr. Ojha. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is admitted fact that the petitioner suffered serious injuries over both the legs on account of IED explosion. The petitioner lost his left leg and steel rod was inserted in his right leg. The disability was assessed to the extent of 80%, but perusal of letter dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure R/3) would reveal that the petitioner has not submitted disability certificate issued by District Medical Board. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed fact, this petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation accompanied with permanent disability certificate before the competent authority i.e. Director General of Police, and in turn, the said authority is directed to take expeditious decision, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant