Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Kumar Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 June, 2022
Page No.1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3975 of 2022
1. Kishore Kumar Sethiya, S/o Surendra Sethiya Aged About 41 Years
R/o House No. 32, W.No. 2, Bandha Para, Sonabal, Po Sonabal,
Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
2. Nila Ram Korram, S/o Bisnath Korram Aged About 32 Years R/o
Kulenaar Para, Kudhur, Matwal, Kondagaon District Kondagaon
Chhattisgarh.
3. Dusenram Kashyap S/o Anat Ram Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o
House No. 108, Kulenaar Para, Kudhur, Matwal, Tehisl Kondagaon
District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
4. Anjobati Hewar D/o Gunidas Jewar Aged About 32 Years R/o House
No. 92, Nadipara, Mardapal Tehisl Kondagaon District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
5. Shivram Kashyap S/o Banga Ram Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Kudhur, Matwal, Tehisl Kondagaon District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
6. Videshram Kuldeep S/o Late Bajrang Kuldeep Aged About 43 Years
R/o Ward No. 7, Bamhani, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
7. Hirau Ram Salam S/o Ramsay Salam Aged About 39 Years R/o
Bedapara, Todasi Keshkal Binjhe, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Collector Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintendent Of Police Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3984 of 2022
1. Suresh Kumar Jain, S/o Phoolchandjain, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Panidobir, Gram Panchayat Panidobir, Tehsil Kanker, District
Kanker Chhattisgarh.
Page No.2
2. Dashrath Kashyap S/o Budhram Kashyap Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Ghodagaon, Kandadi , Tehsil Narayanpur,district Narayanpur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Kumari Sonbatti D/o Lae Maddharam Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Batumpara, Police Station Orcha, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.
4. Sukchand Yadav S/o Chamru Yadav Aged About 34 Years Ward
No.05, Singoditaral Ward , Narayanpur , District Narayanpur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Director Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Collector Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintendent of Police Kondagaon, District Kondagaon
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
__________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.
For State/Respondents : Ms. Sunita Jain & Mr. R.M. Solapurkar,
Govt. Advocate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
21/06/2022
Heard.
1. The petitioners are before this Court praying for issuance of
appropriate direction.
2. It is submitted that petitioners were appointed as Special Police Officer
by the respondent No.4 between years 2009-2015. All the petitioners
have been removed from this services by various orders passed
between the year 2018-2021. All the petitioners have filed
Page No.3
representations, which has been received by the Office of the
respondent No.4 on 8.10.2021. It is submitted that Section 10(3) of the
Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, provides, that a
member who has been terminated from the force by the appointing
authority, may make representation to such authority as may be
prescribed, and such prescribed authority shall consider the
representation of the aggrieved member within a period of sixty days
and pass appropriate order on the representation made. It is submitted
that about more than one year has passed and the representations
filed by the petitioners are still pending without any decision. The
petitioners are facing difficulties, as they were appointed to assist the
regular armed forces and the action against the various naxals groups.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in
the case of Nandini Sundar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 547. It is submitted that there was a specific
direction by the Supreme Court, that the State of Chhattisgarh shall
make arrangement to provide all appropriate security to the Special
Police Officers and also their family. The petitioners are in life
threatening situation, therefore, it is prayed that their representations
may be considered by the respondent No.4.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits, that the
services of the petitioners have been terminated for insubordination
and on disciplinary grounds. According to the appointment order itself,
there was no requirement for giving any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and it is also submitted that these petitions have been
brought with sufficient delay, hence, the same should not be
entertained, therefore, the petitions may be dismissed.
Page No.4
4. Considered on the submissions. Taking into consideration the facts
that the petitioners have been terminated from the services of the
Special Police Officer between the years 2018-2021, however, Section
10(3) of the Act, 2011, provides for an opportunity to such persons,
who have been removed from such services to file representations. If
is to be noted that there is no time limit provided for filing such
representation, however, the representations are filed and the same
are pending for decision, hence, the petitions are disposed off. The
respondent No.4 is directed to consider on the representations filed by
the petitioners dated 8.10.2021 at the earliest within a time limit of 60
days and pass appropriate order in accordance with law without being
influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.
5. With these observations, the petitions are disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nisha
