SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

2025:CGHC:59006 Digitally signed by SYED NAFR ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2025.12.12

17:18:38 +0530 WPC No. 1522 of 2023

1. Prashant Kumar S/o Late Kamal Das Ukey Aged About 41 Years Caste - Mahar, R/o Maitri Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil - Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector/Upper Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

04/12/2025

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents.

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to issue Permanent Social Status Certificate (Caste Certificate) to the Petitioner, prescribed period granted under Rule 9 & 10 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 14.12.2020 when petitioner applied online for issuance of caste certificate of Scheduled Caste in favour of his children, respondent No.3 rejected that application on 27.1.2021 on the ground that petitioner hails from District Balaghat of State of Madhya Pradesh. Aggrieved with such denial, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’), which came to be dismissed on 17.5.2022. He contended that forefathers of petitioner were residents of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh of Balaghat district. Petitioner’s father was appointed in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai in the year 1979, which is now falling in the State of Chhattisgarh, and retired from service in the year 2011. Petitioner is having a caste certificate dated 12.7.1996 issued by Additional Tahsildar, Durg that he belongs to ‘Mahar’ caste which falls under the category of scheduled caste. This certificate has not been cancelled by any authority and in such circumstance, there was no justification on the part of respondent No.3 to refuse caste certificate of Scheduled Castes to petitioner’s children. Referring to Notification dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-12), he submits that the spouse and children of an employee of the institution of the Central Government in the area of Chhattisgarh State would be permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. As the petitioner’s father was employee of the institution of Central Government situated in the area of State of Chhattisgarh and retired as such in the year 2011, petitioner has attained the status of permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh and is entitled to get all benefits including the caste status. He also drawn attention of this Court towards Section 12 of the Act of 2013 wherein it is provided that government employees of undivided Madhya Pradesh and their family members shall be deemed to have been migrated involuntary from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh and if they belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes in the parent State, they shall be issued certificate and shall be given benefits of reservation in the migrated State of Chhattisgarh. He submits that in the given fact situation and in view of clear and unambiguous language used in Rule 12 of the Rules of 2013, rejection of application for grant of caste certificate is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the decisio