3r cur: \^ * IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICA.IErURE AT BIIASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRTT. EBTITION N0. A^^f OF 2002 PETITIONERS :- 1 Rajendra Patel S/oMunlraj Pafcel aged about 28 years< 2 Anju Pratap slngh S/o Samayraj Singh aged about 24 years^ 3 Pankaj Tiwari S/o Ramayaa P<»Tiwari aged about 32 years^ 4^ Mahendra Tlwari S/o Raghunath P<.Tiwari aged about 30 years» Rammani Shukla, s/o Harivansh Pd^Shukla aged alx>ut 29 years^ Mangaldas Chirthlahare S/o M^D^Chirthlah^re aged about 30 years^ Arurendra Mishra S/o Dharendra Pd<» Mishra aged about 31 years^ Awadhesh Paekra g/o Bashu. Sai Pealcra aged about 29 years» Sanjay Singh S/o Lalji Sii-igh^ aged about 25 years• Gulam Varish Khan S/o R<Khan,aged about 32 yr< C^H^ Dlvakar Rao S/o C^H^ Chandra Shater Rao, aged about 32 years* Nelesh Vanktieday S/o Meghshyam^an aged atout 23 years 13^ Nandu ITetake S/o Danagdxi Netake aged afaoufe 28 years<» 14 • Rajendra Sahu S/o Ghasiram Sahu aged about 32 years» 15^ Bhiaghunath Yadav s/o Bhula Yadav aged about 32 years^ 16^ Satish Singh Sea^er S/o Jagat Bhadur aged about 29 years^ 17^ Brijesh Tiwarl S/o Devdat Wiwari^ aged about 28 years^ A 11 employees of ffi^WK FORCE, Petitioner 3,4,17 belonging to 6 Batalin, Petitioner 12,13,14 belonglng to 1st Batalin, remalning petitioner belonging to 4th Batalin, ,^ VERSUS RESPONDSNTS :-^'4)1 • The Stat& of C<.G« Through Sec^Home Deptt. D^K^ Bhawan^ Raipi^r (C^G^) 02• The State of M«P,» Through Sec. Home, ^ vallabh Bhawan Bhopal M<,P^ 03^ D<G^P<i (DireGtor General o£ Police) Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M«P«) 04 <, Director General of Police^ D^Ke Bhawan^ Raipur (C^G<.) 8, 9. 10, 11, 12, ^y \...^ \- -\^-^ . .fe ---^^I.^^!—..;^.^.. - ^^ ^^ ^" KRIT PETITION UNDER ARITIGLB -226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF -INDST-~ XI-HC-78 \jxyc|r^||A||rt^, tPrH<<-|<l<o, ROW^ ^Tg,^.....^-^-.2-^- 3H^$T q^cp (ljc||^4«ri) ^2002^ 3rr^^Twf^:yt<p n^T3ff^?T3RN? 1 i^TT^T? ^rit^T OT^^T 4-is-?nnsi On G mention bemg mad| Mrs. Anju Ahuja, couns^ Mr. Sanjay Shyam A| respondents No»l& 4. Return has already beer^ No.l & 4. As far as respond^ necessary party'. Heard both the counseil The petitioners' case is to raise Hawk Force'for An11 posted in the Hawk Force w^ Operation Risk AIIowance, ar Secretary (Home) to this eff^ was formed on 25-10-1999 undergo special training at tl compieted their training on 5 clearjng the same were post< particu iar ly Balaghat, respectively. The petitioners extreme areas in adverse cir welfGre benefits to which the' ^i<ifc")<nvi +ii^wV^'fc1-<?i ^Ri^-ci^ ^3ri^T31I^9T ^ the matter is taken up for hearing, ! for the petitioners. irawal, ©ovt. Advocate for the State/ filed on behalf of the State/respondents nts No.2 & 3 are concerned / they are not for final disposal of this petition, Ithat the State €5ovemmenttook a decision Naxalite Operations, and the employees |re to be given 70% basic pay as Naxalite ^d the circujar issued by the Additionat bct is Annexure PCT1. The said Hawk Force ^nd the persons selected were asked to \ie PTC, Borgaon. The petitioners having -2-2000 for 90 days at PTC, Borgaon end ^d at different Naxalite effected areas, Rajno^idgaon, Dantewada, Bastar & Surguja |were supposed to perform their duties in |cumstances and they were not given the were entitied being in Poiice Department. XI-HC-78 \JTTC| ^IZII^^I, t?Tll<<-l<Ko, Rrtl'<-iy<< ^Hrtlt^mq? 3TT^$T q^l»(^c|i^4^) ^200 3Tr^$T^5Tf^H^ ?Tan'3T^sf;a?wp' ||NW BI i^TT^r^^ OT^^T Thp. n^titinn^lrl<^ w^.r*p. wnrkinn i <pi<ifo<nTi +ti*ic^Y^' i^^si \(^i^-ci>( L^?P:^i^$T ^^trp.m^ Iv N^^<i 111<?» ^ffffr.<"tpd n^BOS. behdif Hakk UItimately, the petitioners haf directed to pay 70% of basic pa^ with ©ffectfrom 25-10-1999 tilj was discontinued. In the return filed oh has been mentioned that the from 3-4-2002 and there is no regard< It has further been Pradesh and the Director 6enero|l abetter position to bring the Court. It has not been pointed said decision was impiemented or of Rs.274.93 lakhs was sanctione< by the then State of Madhya expenditure of-Rs.274,93 bkhs Ailowance to the members of th| whether the said decision was irrt sanctioned. Therefore, the writ Learned counsei for the p^ worked as members of the Hawkl from 1999 till the said schemel fe prayed that the respondents be ^ as Naxalite Operation Risk AIIowance 3-4-2002, when the said Hawk Force Oi|jt of the State/respondents No,l & 4 it Force was discontinued with effect q^jestion of payment of aibwance in this ^nention'ed that the State of Madhya of Police, Madhya Pradesh would be in c^rrect facts to the knowledge of this in the writ petition that whether the whether the non-recurring expenditure ^ or not. Though the decision was taken Pradesh to sanction a non-recurring jor payrnent of Naxatite Operation Risk i^ Hawk Force, but it is not clear as to plemented or whether the ainountwas tetition be dismissed. 3^titioners subtnits that the petitioners Force under the scheme Annexure P-1 was discontinued on 3n4-a2002. She XI-HC-78 1FTpTc5T a»^n^ \jwi '-qiqio^, lP-al'<-|<|c»,Rlrtl^iyx CJ).<P.<2r- 3TT^$T ^FEP (4c|i^6|«g) ^200^ 3Tr^^T^Tl^Hcp ^^nOTt^T^WP 1^ .A '^ ll ^R:1T?R^?T3n^$T " -^l fur^h^ r ^ubn^ it^ thot nft<?r ri? an r4nn ?7^tion F^rce who were members of the Hawk Madhya Pradesh have already bee|i State of Chhattisgarh has not' Learned counse! also submits representation Annexure P-4, On the other hand, iearn^c Chhattisgarh submitted that th4 State of Madhya Pradesh and the sa'me. Having heard learned coun^ record. It is eyident from erstwhiie State of Madhya Madhya Pradesh issued the circui4r |HQwk Force for controlling the that the members of the Hawk basic pay as Naxalite Operation by iearned counsel for the State Ithat this circular was not issued petitioners have not worked as m^ levaslve return has been filed on bt and remained part of the State of paid the said 70% aiiowance, but the paid any amount to the petitioners* jthat the petitioners have made a but|the respondents have not responded. i^d Govt. Advocate for the State of order was passed by the erstwhile the State of Chhattisgarh Is not aware of Pradesh cpl<4lc^<i1r1 ^MC^Y^'I^^ ^Rl^I^ .^,3ri^g.3n^$T -t-h^ Stnt<3> th^" ^mnlnv^i d for the parties, I have perused the Abnexure P-1 that on 20-9-1999 the when it was a unified State of (Annexure P-1) regarding creation of tspaxalite activities, and it was decided :orce will be entitled for 70% of the Atlowance. It has not been denied |of Chhattisgarh/respondents No.l & 4 it has aiso not been denied that the wbers of the said Hawk Force* Mere )^half of the State/respondents No.l & l^isk ohd l^ XI-HC-78 \j-cnc|^|^lrtZ|,u>-a1<<i<i<?, Riow^ +11*101 a?TT^ .w..:^'.:^?.^/ 3IT^?T q^p (xjcli^cj^) ^200^. 3Tr^$T^f^;TTcp ?TaTT3T[i?TtpWP Soma / .^ ^ :^n8R^f^T3n^$T 4. cv^n the renrle<sentfition /^Annd not been decided by the responde) Therefore, in the averments rnade in the writ petj denied by the respondents that^ members of the Hawk force durir] 2002,1 am of the opinion that th| allowance as per Annexure P-1. In the result, the writ peti| 4 ar@ directed to pay 70% of t| petitioners as per the circufar An^ & 4 will be entitied to ascertain discharged by the petitioners Qr^ payment under Annexure P-1 only as members of the Hawk Force du Parties are entitled for cer cpi^fc^<Tlvi *ii<icyl ^" I^^St ^f^i^-ci<< ^,3ri^T^$T .... ^i!r»p. K-^1.1 m^rlp. hv thp nptitjnn^r*<55 bts. circumst<txnces, in view of AnnexureP-1 and the [tion, and specifically it has not been the petitioners have not worked as |9 the period from 25-10-1999 to 3-4- ^ petitiohers are entitied for 70% risk ^"ion is allowed and respondents No.l & |ie basic pay as risk ailowoince to the jiexure P-i. However, respondents No.l n each and every case about the duty |d the petitioners wi!l be entstled for for the period for which they worked i^ing the period 1999-2002. •1-ified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge