SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
LEELA RAM BAGHEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/5153/2022



Digitally signed by RAME SH 2026:CGHC:19868 KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.05.07 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5153 of 2022 * - Leela Ram Baghel S/o Shri Laikhan Ram Aged About 52 Years Sub Inspector (Ministerial), Police Training Centre, Borgaon District Kondagoan, R/o 29, Tiranga Chowk, Ambedkar Ward No. 29, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Additional Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Administration) Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Commandant Police Training Centre, Borgaon,, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

6 - Shri Kolharam Nagwanshi, Inspector (Earlier Subedar-M) working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

7 - Shri Francis Xavier, Inspector, (Earlier Subedar-M), Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police Korea, Police Station Baikunthpur,, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shrijan Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

29/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or writs/order or orders directing the respondent authorities to provide promotion to the petitioner on the post of Inspector (ministerial) [earlier Subedar (Aa)] w.e.f. 20.09.2013 and place him above respondent no. 6 & 7 in the seniority list.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may direct the respondent authorities to provide consequential benefits to petitioner in terms of salary, pay, increments etc. pursuant to such promotion.

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide promotion to the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector (ministerial) since

20.04.2006.

10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in Police Department 26.07.1995. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) vide order dated 02.01.2009. It is pleaded that the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe category, but he has wrongly been shown as general category, therefore, there is mistake on the part of the respondent authorities and the petitioner is continuously being deprived of timely promotions. In seniority list of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) dated 01.04.2018, the petitioner has rightly been shown to be scheduled tribe category, but he has not been given the benefit of promotion on the post of Inspector (Ministerial). It is further pleaded that though the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) since 20.04.2006 and to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) since 20.09.2013, but his name was not considered by the respondent authorities. It is also pleaded that the petitioner made representation before the respondents which was rejected vide order dated 15.11.2019 and against said order, this petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top