2026:CGHC:2530 Digitally signed by YOGESH NAFR YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.01.15

18:55:25 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 19.12.2025 Order Delivered on : 15.01.2026 WPS No. 2035 of 2023 Smt. Anju Gupta W/o Shri Mahesh Prasad Gupta Aged About 50 Years Working As Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPO) Posted At The Court Of J.M.F.C. Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District -

Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director Directorate of Public Prosecution, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Additional Director Directorate Of Public Prosecution, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Prosecution, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

CAV Order

1. Heard Mr. Aman Tamboli, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 23.08.2019, 01.10.2019 and 09.06.2022, whereby the respondents have arbitrarily denied confirmation of her services on the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (‘ADPO’), deleted her name from the list of confirmed officers, rendered the earlier posting order ineffective qua her, and rejected her claim on the purported ground of non-availability of vacant posts, despite her undisputed selection through PSC, satisfactory and unblemished service since joining on 27.12.2010, and a categorical recommendation for confirmation made by respondent No.2 on 17.03.2015.

3. The petitioner further assails the action of the respondents in withholding confirmation and consequential benefits, including grant of increments and permanent status, solely on account of a subsequently initiated departmental enquiry, which has since concluded, contending that such action is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order Annexure P/1 and be pleased to allow the petition by holding that the rejection of representation was illegal.

10.2 Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent's authorities to treat the petitioner as confirmed in governmental service from the date and basis of recommendation (Annexure P/4) made on 17.03.2015.

10.3 Hon'ble Court be further direct the respondent authority to grant the increment to the petitioner for which she is entitled from the date of confirmation, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Any other relief[s] deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case suitable to the petitioner may also be granted.

10.5 That this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to allow this petition and set aside/ quash the impugned orders Annexure P/10, P/11 and P/12 in the interest of justice.

10.6 That this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to direct the respondents to entire arrears of increments along with 10% per annum interest thereupon, from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment, in the interest of justice.

10.7 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for harassment and mental agony.

Cost of litigation may also be awarded.”

5. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was selected as Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPO) on 05.05.2010 and joined service on 27.12.2010 on a two-year probation. She performed her duties satisfactorily, and her service was recommended for co