Dinesh Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:20331

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2315 of 2017

¶6

1 - Dinesh Patel S/o. Shri Ramkishor Patel, Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As Head Constable In 11th Battalion, C. A. F., Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Shri Harendra Sahu, S/o Shri Gajanand Sahu, Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As Head Constable, S. T. F. Baghera, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Shri Madan Singh Netam, S/o Shri Vishram Singh Netam, Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Head Constable, S. T. F. Baghera, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Komal Singh Suryavanshi, S/o Bodhan Ram Suryavanshi, Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As A. P. C. In 3rd Battalion, C.A.F. Amleshwar, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Police, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - Additional Director General C. A. F., Police Headquarter, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - Inspector General Of Police, C.A.F., Police Headquarter, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

5 - Superintendent Of Police, S.T.F. Baghera, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶17

6 - Commandant, 11th Battalion, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa

¶18

-2-

¶19

Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶20

---- Respondents

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶23

02.05.2025

¶24

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶25

“10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from concerned department pertaining to the case of the petitioners.

¶26

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby directing to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to award out of turn promotion with one rank to the petitioners in the light of the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj vide its letter dated 06.08.2009 to the I.G.P. Surguja Range, SurgujaAmbikapur as well as vide its letter dated 17.09.2012 to the D.G.P. police headquarter Raipur.

¶27

10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioners..”

¶28

Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners who were posted on the post Constables at the relevant time, participated in the naxal operation on 22.11.2006 and this fact is evident from a perusal of the FIR dated 23.11.2006. He would further submit that the names of the petitioners were recommended for out-of-turn promotion by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur but not considered. He would also submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of State

¶29

3

¶30

of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Brajesh Kumar Tiwari passed in Writ Appeal No.214 of 2025 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the State and affirmed the order passed by the writ Court whereby a direction was issued to authorities to consider the claim of the police officials for out-of-turn promotion.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dubey. He would submit that the names of the petitioners were within the zone of consideration but the documents annexed along with the return would reveal that those names were not considered. He would further submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶33

The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Brajesh Kumar Tiwari (supra) , while dealing with the issue of out of turn promotion in paras 8,9 & 10 held as under:-

¶34

“ 8 . From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the writ petitioner, has held that it is amply clear that for the participation in the several Naxal operations, the police authorities including the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur as well as the Inspector 7 General of Police, Surguja Range have already recommended for grant of out of turn promotion as well as Gallantry Award. The writ petitioner has actively participated in several Naxal operations in which the police party has successfully killed hard core Naxalites, as such the participation of the writ petitioner in the Naxal operations is required to be appreciated by granting him out of turn promotion as well as Gallantry Award likewise for two Naxal operations he has been rewarded while recommending 12 Boar Gun (DBBL) as well as

¶35

-4-

¶36

one Pistol. Since all these rewards have been recommended by the authorities, now, the authorities cannot escape from their liability to give the reward to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the authorities were directed to give one out of turn promotion to the writ petitioner for his participation in the Naxal operation dated 4.3.2004 in which 5 Naxalites were killed by the police party. In the said operation, a recommendation was made for grant of Gallantry Medal to the writ petitioner as well as out of turn promotion in which part of the recommendation has been complied with and the writ petitioner has been given Gallantry Award. However, the promotion was denied without there being any reason.

¶37

9. Learned Single Judge further held that the writ petitioner is entitled for one out of turn promotion and the authorities are under obligation to give him out of turn promotion. Likewise, for the Naxal operation dated 9.9.2005 the writ petitioner was recommended for 12 Boar Gun (DBBL) which is still awaited by the writ petitioner. This is also required to be complied with and the authorities are under obligation to give a 12 Boar Gun (DBBL) to the writ petitioner as reward. For the Naxal operation dated 17.11.2005, an award of one Pistol was directed to be given for rewarding the writ petitioner, however, that has also not been given to him. As such, the authorities were directed to give one Pistol as recommended by them as reward. For the Naxal operation dated 5.9.2006, a recommendation for Gallantry Medal was made by the police authorities and that is also required to be given to the writ petitioner. Because there is no denial that the writ petitioner has not participated in the Naxal operation or the writ petitioner is not entitled for the said award. If once it has been held that the writ petitioner is entitled to get the said award, it is incumbent upon the authorities to give him reward as proposed and recommended by them.

¶38

10 . Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.”

¶39

5

¶40

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners participated in the naxal operation and it is evident from the documents annexed by the petitioners as well as the State. The names of the petitioners were not found suitable for out of turn promotion by the respondent authorities.

¶41

Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Brajesh Kumar Tiwari (supra) and the facts of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the names of the petitioners for out of turn promotion. The decision shall be taken in this regard by the respondent authorities within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

¶42

With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶44

Rekha

Dinesh Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Pradeep Kumar Diwakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Vs Jhangalu

Manav Rachna Education Society Vs Union of India

Prabandh Sanchalak, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Vipran Sangh Maryadit Vs Rajendra Singh Thakur

Shri Devendra Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh