1 2026:CGHC:13472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2508 of 2026 1. Smt. Priya Bhoi W/o Shri Mahendra Bhoi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Malpada Post Chhindaikala, Tahsil Paikmal District- Bargarh (Odisha) Present Address Village Khursipahar, Police Station Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Dhanraj Dewangan S/o Late Shri Jethuram Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Dewangan Mohalla, Juna Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2. Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3. Director General of Police Police Headquarter Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarter Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Superintendent of Police Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 20/03/2026 VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.03.23 15:22:50 +0530 2 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is working as Constable (Ministerial) and petitioner No.2 is working as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial). 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 on 28.09.2013 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 scrutinized and if after due verification, it is found that their case is similar, they shall be entitled to all such benefits available to them in accordance with law. 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 treatment as has been extended to the previous set of petitioners in whose favour order dated 03.12.2013 has been passed, within a period of one month from today, the competent authority shall scrutinize her case 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. 3 4. If any adverse order is passed against the petitioners. They would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Vaishali