1 CGHC010323662026 2026:CGHC:38014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4406 of 2026 1 - Smt. Nirmala Sarthi Wife Of Rambihari Sarthi, Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Bardaputi, P. S. Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Management And Disaster Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. 3 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department Raigarh District Raigarh C.G. 4 - Sub Superintendent of Police A J A K Raigarh C. G. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrasen Chouhan, Advocate. For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.08.2026 RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.25 16:12:16 +0530 2 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant compensation on account of the death of her father-in-law Mukhi Ram Sarthi, in accordance with the provisions of the clause 45 of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Rules framed thereunder, and the applicable Government circulars/guidelines, arising out of the alleged murder of her father-in-law by the accused persons. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities consider the representation and to pay compensation amount of Rs. 8,25,000/- on account of death of the deceased as per circular of the Government, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely Mukhi Ram Sarthi, was murdered by Raja Yadav @ Rajvir, Rakesh Kumar Rohidas and Karan Suryavanshi and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- in terms of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Rules framed thereunder and the applicable Government circulars/guidelines. It is submitted that despite the entitlement of the petitioner under Clause 45 of the notification 3 dated 14.04.2016, the respondent authorities have withheld the claim without assigning any sufficient or lawful reason. He further submits that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and the petitioner and other family members were wholly dependent upon his income, and after his death, they are facing serious financial hardship and difficulty in sustaining themselves. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor Scheduled Caste family and has no other source of income and, therefore, the compensation payable under the applicable provisions ought to have been released at the earliest. He next submits that the petitioner had submitted an application before the learned Collector, Raigarh, seeking compensation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, thereafter the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh, also issued a communication to the Additional Superintendent of Police regarding payment of compensation in terms of the amended Rules of 2016; however, despite the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner's claim has not been considered and the admissible compensation has not been paid till date. It is further submitted that Clause 45 of the notification dated 14.04.2016 specifically provides for compensation in the event of death of the victim and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the said benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2456/2026 in a similar matter and submits that the inaction on 4 the part of the respondent authorities in considering the petitioner's claim is arbitrary, contrary to the applicable provisions and has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner; hence, appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the respondents for consideration and release of the compensation amount of Rs.8,25,000/- in accordance with law. 4. Learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents, submits that the claim of the petitioner may be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and the applicable provisions, Rules and Government guidelines. It is further submitted that, if this Court considers it appropriate, a direction may be issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within a stipulated period, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without commenting upon the merits or entitlement of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation/claim of the petitioner seeking grant of compensation under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 5 Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as the applicable Government circulars/guidelines, after duly verifying the claim of the petitioner from the relevant records and documents and thereafter pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim or his entitlement to the compensation claimed. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju