Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Saraswati Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:29675
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2696 of 2018
1 - Smt. Saraswati Sahu W/o W/o Likesh Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o
Village Lajoda Tahsil Pharsgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh,
District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nayar Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Police Head Quarter Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Indrawati Bhawan,
Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Lalbagh, Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
6 - Superintendent Of Police, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Superintendent Of Police Bastar, District Uttar Bastar Kanker,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
8 - Collector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
For State : Mr.Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer
-2-
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
02/07/2025
Heard.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the entire records with regard to the petitioner.
(ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the order dated 09/12/2017 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur by which the
employment in the police department was rejected.
(iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondents to extend the benefit of the
Rehabilitation Scheme for Naxalite affected person and
give employment to the petitioner as per the scheme.
(iv) Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of
petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice.
(v) Cost of the petition.”
2. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that on 31.10.1998, the petitioner lodged an FIR for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149,
323 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act against 12 named
Naxalite persons alleging that they committed the murder of her brother
and also kidnapped and brutally treated her. He would also submit that
the petitioner was set free and thereafter she joined as a “Secret Soldier”
under the respondent authorities from 24.04.1999 and worked there till
20.01.2003. He would contend that the petitioner applied for service as
per her qualification being a naxalite affected person and a secret soldier
in the police department. He would further contend that the department
vide order dated 09.12.2017 rejected the application on the ground that
3no record was available to prove the fact that the petitioner was providing
secret information to the police against Naxals. He would also contend
that according to the order issued by the Home Department, State of
Chhattisgarh dated 16.11.2015, naxals affected and secret soldiers are
entitled to be considered for employment. He would also submit that
respondent No.1 issued another order on 20.10.2004 which provides for
the rehabilitation and other benefits to naxal-affected persons. He would
refer to clause 16 of the Policy dated 20.10.2004 which states that if any
person is naxal affected, his or her name may be considered for
appointment in the Police Department or Home Guard. He would further
argue that the persons killed by Naxalites would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also contended that vide letter dated 09.07.2014, the
petitioner was called by the Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur along
with relevant documents for rehabilitation purposes. It is also argued that
vide letter dated 25.08.2015, the Assistant Inspector General of Police
issued a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range to
consider the claim of the petitioner. He would also argue that despite
several communications between the higher police officials, no decision
has been taken. He would state that the representation made by the
petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.12.2017 by the
Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur on the ground that the petitioner is
a sister of one Leekesh Sahu, who was killed by the Naxalites but she
has already married and at present, she is not a member of the family of
the deceased, therefore, she is not entitled. He would pray that the
present petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to
extend the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme.
-4-
3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing
for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava.
He would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a secret soldier but
she was not very diligent in the duties assigned to her and her activities
were found suspicious, accordingly, she was removed from services on
20.01.2003. He would further submit that the application of the petitioner
was placed before the Collector, District Narayanpur to provide
employment and it was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2015 but the said
order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition
and thus, it attained finality. He would also submit that the petitioner has
performed marriage and now she is a member of another family, and
thus, she is not a member of the Naxal-affected family accordingly, she is
not entitled to employment. He would contend that the claim of the
petitioner for employment was considered by the Superintendent of
Police, District Narayanpur according to the Rehabilitation Policy dated
16.11.2015 and the same was rejected in light of Clauses 11 & 16 of the
Rehabilitation Policy. Mr. Bajpayee would further contend that during the
employment of the petitioner as a secret soldier, she failed to show
devotion and honesty and therefore, she was removed from her services
on 20.01.2003 and she never challenged the said order too. Therefore,
the petitioner cannot claim employment on the ground that she was a
secret soldier. He would also submit that with regard to the Rehabilitation
Policy, the matter has already been referred to the higher authorities for
consideration and the same is evident from the letter dated 19.10.2015.
He would lastly submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also
5perused the documents available on the record.
5. The petitioner has claimed employment on two counts :(i) she is a
naxal affected person and (ii), she was appointed as a secret soldier.
6. The claim of the petitioner for employment on the ground that she
was appointed as a secret soldier, was rejected by the Collector vide
order dated 19.10.2015.
7. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for employment being a
naxal affected person, the matter has already been referred to the State
of Chhattisgarh, Home Department for necessary action vide order dated
19.10.2015.
8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2017 only
whereby her claim with regard to the employment was rejected by the
Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur on the ground that after marriage,
she does not remain a member of a naxal affected family.
9. The order as well as the return filed by the State would show that
the petitioner during her deployment as a secret soldier, was not very
much diligent about her duties and her activities were suspicious. She
was removed from services on 20.01.2003 and she has not challenged
the said order. As the petitioner was removed from services, she cannot
claim employment on the ground that earlier she was appointed as a
secret soldier.
10. With regard to the benefits of the rehabilitation policy for the naxal-
affected persons, the Collector has already forwarded the matter to the
State Government to take appropriate action according to the
Rehabilitation Policy.
-6-
11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find
any good ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1
dated 09.12.2017 (Annexure P/1), therefore, the order passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Narayanpur whereby the claim of the petitioner
for employment has been rejected, is hereby affirmed. Respondent No.1
is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to
rehabilitation as per the direction issued in the order dated 09.12.2017.
12. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition
is disposed of. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
[ad_1]
Source link