1 / 3 2026:CGHC:1826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 170 of 2026 1 - Shri Neeraj Kumar Tandon S/o Late Shri Puhupram Aged About 22 Years Occupation- Constable (M), At The Office Of Senior Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, R/o C/18 Ward No. 1, P.T.S. Colony, Maana Camp, Raipur, P.S. Maana, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Geetanjali Banarjee W/o Late Shri Ramkumar Banerjee Aged About 37 Years Occupation Constable (M), At The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, R/o Police Colony, Amlideeh, Raipur District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Smt Seema Yadav W/o Late Shri Anil Yadav Aged About 36 Years Occupation Constable (M), At The Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, R/o Police Colony, Amlideeh, Raipur District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Smt Madhva Kshetri W/o Late Shri Mahesh Kshetri Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As- Asi (M), At General Branch, Police Head Quarter, Nava Raipur, R/o 7th Battallion C.G. Force, Bhilai P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Chief Secretary Home Affiars, Police Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar District Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Home Affiars, Police 2 / 3 Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, District Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director General Of Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate For State : Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are appointed on the post of Constable (Ministerial) with the order passed by the office of Police Head Quarter, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Their grievance is that despite order passed by this Court in WP-4563 of 2006 and the order passed by Division Bench on 23.02.2011 in WA- 426 of 2011, against which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP(Civil)-13274 of 2013, the benefits made admissible to the similarly placed persons vide order dated 03.12.2013 issued by Home Department have not been extended to the petitioners. He would submit that the Director General of Police has already issued a communication for extending similar benefits to all the similarly placed persons, but yet necessary orders have not been passed. 2. Learned State counsel would submit that in the event petitioners submit fresh representation before the competent authority, their case shall be 3 / 3 scrutinized and if after due verification, it is found that their case is similar, appropriate orders will be passed. 3. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event petitioners submit fresh representation before the competent authority claiming similar relief as has been extended to the similarly situated employees in whose favour order dated 03.12.2013 has been passed, the competent authority shall scrutinize the case of petitioners and if on verification, it is found that the petitioners are identically placed, necessary orders in this regard be passed in accordance with law within further period of two months. 4. If any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to take recourse to law. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza