Rashmi Bhaskar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rashmi Bhaskar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction: in the event the petitioner submits a fresh representation before the competent authority claiming similar relief as extended to the similarly situated employees under the order dated 03.12.2013, the competent authority shall scrutinize the petitioner's case and, if on verification she is found identically placed, pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a further period of two months; if any adverse order is passed, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Constable (Ministerial) claiming to be similarly placed as the employees in whose favour the Home Department order dated 03.12.2013 was passed pursuant to the orders in WP-4563 of 2006, WA426 of 2011 (confirmed on dismissal of SLP(Civil)-13274 of 2013), is entitled to be extended the same benefits, given that the DGP's communication for extending similar benefits had not resulted in necessary orders in her favour.

Ratio / Principle

On a fresh representation by the petitioner before the competent authority claiming relief similar to that extended to the similarly situated employees in whose favour order dated 03.12.2013 was passed, the competent authority shall scrutinize her case and, if on verification she is found identically placed, pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a further period of two months.

Key takeaways

If any adverse order is passed against the petitioner pursuant to the scrutiny of her fresh representation, she would be at liberty to take recourse to law.obiter¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), 16.04.2026, disposed of WPS No. 3282 of 2026 filed by Rashmi Bhaskar, Constable (Ministerial), whose grievance was that the benefits admissible to similarly placed persons under the Home Department order dated 03.12.2013 — issued pursuant to the order in WP-4563 of 2006, the Division Bench order dated 23.02.2011 in WA426 of 2011 (against which SLP(Civil)-13274 of 2013 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court) — had not been extended to her, even though the Director General of Police had issued a communication for extending similar benefits to all similarly placed persons. Recording the State's stand that her case would be scrutinized upon a fresh representation, the Court disposed of the petition directing the competent authority to examine such representation and, if the petitioner is found identically placed, pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a further period of two months, reserving her liberty to take recourse to law against any adverse order.

1 / 3

2026:CGHC:17383

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 3282 of 2026

Rashmi Bhaskar W/o Late Vinay Kumar Bhaskar, Aged About 26 Years Occupation-Constable (M) At The Office Of Commandant Fourth Battallion Mana Camp, Maana, Raipur, R/o Police Colony, New Jameen Mana Camp, Block 1/2, House No.15 P.S. Mana Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)

versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Chief Secretary Home Affiars, Police Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya Atal Nagar, District Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh.

ALFIZA BAIG

2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Home Affiars Police Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, District Nawa Raipur, (C.G.)

Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.04.17 10:45:22 +0530

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 Petitioner	: Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate
For State	: Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel lawyer

2 / 3

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

16.04.2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is appointed on the post of Constable (Ministerial) with the order passed by the office of Police Head Quarter, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Her 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 WA426 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 petitioner. 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.

Learned State counsel would submit that in the event petitioner submit fresh representation before the competent authority, her case shall be scrutinized and if after due verification, it is found that her case is similar, appropriate orders will be passed.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event petitioner 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 petitioner and if on verification, it is found that the petitioner is identically placed,

3 / 3

necessary orders in this regard be passed in accordance with law within further period of two months.

If any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, she would be at liberty to take recourse to law.

Certified copy as per rules. sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Alfiza