1 / 3 2026:CGHC:2593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11931 of 2025 Smt. Khusbhu Yadav D/o Late Vijay Kumar Yadav Aged About 33 Years Occupation - Assistant Sub Inspector (M), Under The Office Of 5th Battalion, CAF Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home 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 Commandant, 5th Battalion CAF Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. Grievance raised by petitioner in this writ petition is that petitioner, who is working as Assistant Sub Inspector (M) under the respondents, is Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.01.21 10:21:45 +0530 2 / 3 being denied grant of ad-hoc pay increase, which has been granted to other similarly placed persons but who were not in Ministerial cadre. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that grievance raised in present writ petition has already been adjudicated upon in favour of other similarly placed persons in Writ Petition (S) No. 4563 of 2006 [Abdul Nawab Khan & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others], decided on 7.5.2009. Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 4563 of 2006 has been affirmed even up till the stage of Supreme Court. Subsequently, another batch of petitioners filed writ petition bearing WP No. 4523/2014 [Francis Xavier Back & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others], and said writ petition also got disposed of on 3.7.2015, granting benefit which has been extended to other similarly placed persons in the light of decision rendered in case of Abdul Nawab Khan (supra). She prays that respondents may be directed to consider case of petitioner also in similar line. 3. Learned State Counsel does not oppose the same. 4. Accordingly, present writ petition is also disposed of in similar line as in case of Francis Xavier Back & Others v. State of CG, decided on 3.7.2015 in WPS No. 4523 /2014. 5. In case, subject to verification, if petitioner is found eligible, the relief, as sought for, may be granted to her forthwith and if respondents find that petitioner is not entitled, he may be suitably intimated in this regard giving reasons for his non- entitlement. 5. Let this exercise be done within a period of 90 days from the date of petitioner's presenting certified copy of this order before respondent authorities. 3 / 3 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen