PALLAVI MESHRAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010114712024 2026:CGHC:45194
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2115 of 2024
Order Reserved on: 6.8.2026
Order Delivered on: 27.10.2026
Pallavi Meshram D/o Avindra Meshram Aged About 35 Years
•
Caste Mahar, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Kalkapara Donghargarh,
Tah. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal
Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dongargarh, Tah.
Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A.

2
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for 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 the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social
Status Certification) Rules, 2013.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may issue a writ in the
nature of mandamus to the respondent no.2 & 3, who has
not taken any action till date only to harass the petitioner.
Therefore, order to take action against respondent no.2 &
3 should be passed.”
2. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, assails the order
dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh, rejecting her application for issuance of a Social
Status Certificate recognizing her as belonging to the Mahar

3
Scheduled Caste, has been dismissed and the order of the SDO
(Revenue) has been affirmed. The application for issuance of the
Social Status Certificate was rejected by the concerned authorities
primarily on the ground that the forefathers of the petitioner were
residents of Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, and that the petitioner
herself had produced an admission register from Balaghat, which
falls within the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was further observed
that the said document was issued on 27.03.2014, which,
according to the authorities, indicated that both the petitioner and
her forefathers were residents of Madhya Pradesh, and that the
petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence
showing her residence within the territory which now constitutes
the State of Chhattisgarh prior to 10.08.1950. On the aforesaid
basis, the application for issuance of the Social Status Certificate
was rejected by both the authorities. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders, submits that the
State of Chhattisgarh was carved out of the erstwhile State of
Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, mere residence of the petitioner
or her forefathers in an area which, prior to the formation of the
State of Chhattisgarh, formed part of Madhya Pradesh, cannot by
itself be treated as a valid ground for denying the petitioner the
benefit of her claimed social status. It is further submitted that if
the petitioner was residing in the territory which subsequently
became part of the State of Chhattisgarh, the fact that such
territory was earlier within the State of Madhya Pradesh would not

4
disentitle her from claiming a Social Status Certificate in the State
of Chhattisgarh merely on account of the subsequent
reorganization of the State. It is, therefore, contended that the
claim of the petitioner for issuance of a Social Status Certificate
certifying her as belonging to the Mahar Scheduled Caste
deserves to be considered in accordance with law, and that the
impugned orders passed by the SDO (Revenue), Dongargarh,
and the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, are liable to be set
aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
belongs to the Mahar Scheduled Caste category and is entitled to
issuance of a permanent Social Status Certificate in accordance
with law. It is submitted that the petitioner’s grandfather, namely
Bapu, son of Dadu, a resident of Katori, Tehsil Khairlanji, District
Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, was born on 30.06.1931 and had
studied up to the first standard during the period from 30.04.1939
to 01.11.1939. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner’s father has been permanently settled at Tehsil
Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, in the erstwhile undivided
State of Madhya Pradesh, since the year 1987, and that, pursuant
to the reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the area
comprising Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, has formed
part of the State of Chhattisgarh with effect from 01.11.2000. It is
further submitted that the petitioner and his/her siblings were born
at Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, when the said area

5
was part of the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner’s claim is also supported by the
Circular dated 15.11.2010 issued by the General Administration
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, as well as the judgment
dated 02.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4725 of 2019. It is further
submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, Department of Social Justice and
Empowerment, has issued a clarification regarding issuance of
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificates consequent upon
the reorganization of States, which also supports the petitioner’s
claim. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand &
Others , Civil Appeal No. 4864 of 2021, decided on 18.08.2021,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the effect of State
reorganization on the entitlement of persons residing in a
successor State and held that the claim of a person residing in a
successor State as a consequence of the bifurcation or
reorganization of an erstwhile unified State cannot be
mechanically examined by applying the general principle of
voluntary migration, and that Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution, the relevant Presidential Orders and the legislation
relating to reorganization of the State are required to be
considered conjointly. Learned counsel also relies upon the
judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Smt. Vidya Kumbhare
v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , W.P.(C) No. 95 of 2021,

6
decided on 30.01.2023, and the subsequent judgment in W.A. No.
475 of 2024, State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Vidya Kumbhare &
Others , decided on 30.07.2024, wherein the effect of territorial
reorganization and the caste status of persons whose families had
settled in the region forming part of the present State of
Chhattisgarh were considered, and it was held that a claim cannot
be rejected merely on the ground that the ancestors of the
claimant were not residing within the boundaries of present-day
Chhattisgarh prior to 1950, without properly considering the
relevant territorial history and the effect of State reorganization.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the petitioner’s
continuous connection with the area now forming part of the State
of Chhattisgarh, the reorganization of the erstwhile State of
Madhya Pradesh, the aforesaid Government circulars and the
judgments relied upon, the petitioner’s claim for issuance of a
permanent Social Status Certificate recognizing her/him as
belonging to the Mahar Scheduled Caste deserves to be
considered in accordance with law. It is accordingly prayed that
the respondent competent authority, namely the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh, may kindly be directed to issue the permanent
Social Status Certificate in favour of the petitioner in the interest of
justice.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposing the
petition, submits that the present petition, as framed and filed, is

7
devoid of merit and substance and that the petitioner has failed to
establish any enforceable legal right warranting interference by
this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is submitted
that the State of Chhattisgarh is a welfare State and, having
regard to the substantial population belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the State Government has taken
appropriate measures for safeguarding their interests and for
regulating the issuance of Social Status Certificates in accordance
with the applicable rules, circulars and the judgments rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court. Learned State
counsel further submits that, pursuant to the directions issued by
this Hon’ble Court on 19.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 1811 of 2023, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector,
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, which was registered as
Revenue Case No. 202305091400002/B-121/Year 2022-23, and
after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties and upon
consideration of the documents available on record, the learned
Additional Collector, vide order dated 09.02.2024, dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh. It is submitted that the petitioner’s
claim for issuance of a permanent Social Status Certificate as a
member of the Mahar Scheduled Caste was rejected on the
ground that she had failed to establish that she or her ancestors
were residing within the geographical area presently constituting
the State of Chhattisgarh prior to the date of the Presidential

8
Notification dated 10.08.1950. Learned State counsel submits
that, on the contrary, the material available on record indicates
that the petitioner’s grandfather was a resident of Katori, Tehsil
Khairlanji, District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, and that the
petitioner’s father shifted and settled in the State of Chhattisgarh
only in the year 1987. Thus, the petitioner’s family admittedly
came to reside in the area forming part of the present State of
Chhattisgarh subsequent to the relevant cut-off date, and the
petitioner has failed to produce any cogent and reliable
documentary evidence establishing the residence of her ancestors
within the geographical limits of present-day Chhattisgarh prior to
1950. It is, therefore, submitted that, in terms of the applicable
rules governing issuance of Social Status Certificates, particularly
the Rules of 2013, the petitioner does not satisfy the requisite
conditions for issuance of the claimed certificate. Learned State
counsel further submits that the authorities below have duly
considered the claim of the petitioner, the documents placed on
record and the applicable legal position, and have thereafter
passed reasoned and speaking orders. There is, therefore, neither
any illegality, arbitrariness nor perversity in the impugned order
warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. In view of the
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the State submits that
the petitioner has failed to establish any legal entitlement to the
issuance of the Social Status Certificate and, consequently, the

9
present petition, being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to
be dismissed.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pankaj Kumar vs.
State of Jharkand, (2021) 20 SCC 545 has observed as under:-
“47. By introducing the 2000 Act, so far as the
conditions of service of the serving employees is
concerned, are indeed being protected by virtue of
Section 73 read with Section 74 under Part VIII of
the 2000 Act which clearly provides that such of the
employees who were appointed immediately before
the appointed date holding or discharging duties of
any post or office in connection with the affairs of the
existing State of Bihar in any area now falling in the
successor State of Jharkhand shall continue to hold
the same post or office in the successor State
provided option has been exercised to remain in the
State of Bihar, they shall be deemed to be duly
appointed to the post or office of the successor
State. As a consequence, such of the employees
who are working immediately on or before the
appointed date i.e. 15-11-2000 in those 18 districts
which have been formed part of the State of
Jharkhand in terms of Section 3 of the Act be
deemed to be appointed in the respective successor
State of Jharkhand, with their service conditions not

10
to be varied to his disadvantage except with the
previous approval of the Central Government.
54. The collective readings of the provisions of the
2000 Act makes it apparent that such of the persons
whose place of origin/domicile on or before the
appointed day was of the State of Bihar now falling
within the districts/regions which form a successor
State i.e. the State of Jharkhand under Section 3 of
the 2000 Act became ordinary resident of the State
of Jharkhand, at the same time, so far as the
employees who were in public employment in the
State of Bihar on or before the appointed day i.e. 15-
11-2000 under the 2000 Act, apart from those who
are domicile of either of the district which became
part of the State of Jharkhand, such of the
employees who have submitted their option or
employees who are junior in the cadre of their
seniority as per the policy of the Government of India
of which a reference has been made, either
voluntarily or involuntarily call upon to serve the
State of Jharkhand, their existing service conditions
shall not be varied to their disadvantage and stands
protected by virtue of Section 73 of the 2000 Act.
56. It is made clear that person is entitled to claim
benefit of reservation in either of the successor State

11
of Bihar or State of Jharkhand, but will not be entitled
to claim benefit of reservation simultaneously in both
the successor States and those who are members of
the reserved category and are resident of the
successor State of Bihar, while participating in open
selection in the State of Jharkhand shall be treated
to be migrants and it will be open to participate in
general category without claiming the benefit of
reservation and vice versa.
57. We are of the view that the present appellant
Pankaj Kumar in civil appeal arising out of SLP
(Civil) No. 13473 of 2020, being a serving employee
in the State of Jharkhand by virtue of Section 73 of
the 2000 Act, would be entitled to claim the benefit of
reservation including the privileges and benefits
admissible to the members of Scheduled Caste
category in the State of Jharkhand for all practical
purposes including participation in open competition
seeking public employment.”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Akhilesh Prasad vs.
Jharkhand Public Service Commission and others, (2022)
SCC Online SC 510 has observed as under:-
“17. In Pankaj Kumar, the father of the appellant
belonged to District Patna (which, after
reorganization, is now part of successor State of

12
Bihar) but resided in Hazaribagh (which is now part
of State of Jharkhand) where the appellant was born.
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher
on 21.12.1999 and after reorganization, his service
was allocated to State of Jharkhand. While serving
as a teacher, he appeared as a member of SC
category in the Combined Civil Services
Examination, and though his name appeared at Sl.
No. 5 against 17 vacancies reserved for SC
Category, he was not selected on the ground that he
being permanent resident of Patna, he would be
treated as a migrant in State of Jharkhand.
18. In this factual backdrop, the question that arose for
consideration was as under:
“46. The question that emerges for our consideration
in the instant appeals is whether a person, who has
been a resident of the State of Bihar and where the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes)/(Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950 identifying castes/tribes is issued
extending the benefit to members of SC/ST
throughout the integrated State of Bihar which was
later on bifurcated by virtue of a statutory instrument,
i.e., the Act, 2000, into two successor States (State of
Bihar and State of Jharkhand) with their rights and
privileges to the extent being protected by legislative

13
enactment under the provisions of the Act 2000,
could still be considered to be a migrant to the
successor State of Jharkhand depriving them of their
privileges and benefits to which the incumbent or
their lineal descendants has availed from the very
inception of the Presidential Order 1950 in the
integrated State of Bihar.”
20. As has been clarified in the decision in Pankaj Kumar,
such of the employees who opt for service under a successor
State after reorganization, their existing service conditions
would not be varied to their disadvantage and would stand
protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act. Further, subject to
the condition that such person would not be entitled to claim
the benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor
States, such employees would be entitled to claim not only the
benefit of reservation in the service of the successor State to
which they had opted and were allocated, but they would also
be entitled to participate in any subsequent open competition
with the benefit of reservation.
25. In the instant case and in the case of Pankaj Kumar, the
appellants belonged to a particular community or tribe which
was specified in the erstwhile State of Bihar as Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes when they entered public service in
the erstwhile State of Bihar. The appellants in both the cases
were allocated to the service under State of Jharkhand though

14
they belonged to the areas which after re-organization are
now part of the successor State of Bihar. By virtue of Sections
73 and 74 of the Act, they could certainly claim benefit in the
service under the newly carved State of Jharkhand. On the
strength of the view taken in Pankaj Kumar, the entitlement in
a fresh service in State of Jharkhand as well as in accordance
with the view taken by us in the instant case, the entitlement in
the limited departmental examination in State of Jharkhand is
definitely made out. The basis for their entitlement is primarily
because of Sections 73 and 74 of the Act. It is quite possible
that the progeny of such persons may have stayed back or
may later decide to go back to their roots, that is to say, to the
area which now falls in the newly carved State of Bihar; and
since their lineage is from that area and the State, they may
contend that they are entitled to benefits of reservation in the
newly carved State of Bihar in relation to which State, the
community that they belong, is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe. Paragraph 55 of the decision in Pankaj Kumar is
capable of being read as conferring entitlement on the wards
or the progeny of the appellants in State of Jharkhand alone
where in contradistinction to their lineage, they can claim to
have connection only through their parent(s) and the effect of
the provisions of the Act.”

15
7. The High Court of Bombay in the matter of Vedant vs. State of
Maharashtra passed in WP No. 3294/2022 on 8.5.2026 has
observed as under:-
“11. Reorganization of States on linguistic basis did not
proceed on the basis of castes or tribes and therefore
localities of persons entitled to the benefit of reservation
got divided in different States. If upon removal of area
restrictions, in the entire area of the State as originally
existed on the date of notification of Constitution
(Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes) Orders, the
persons concerned could avail of the benefit of
reservation, there is no reason why they should not be
denied such benefits upon reorganization of the States,
in which a part of their locality was included.
12. This Court, in which one of us were member (Hon'ble
Justice M.S. Jawalkar, J.) had an occasion to decide
almost an identical controversy in Writ Petition No.
1210/2023. In the said matter, the father and ancestors of
the petitioner originally hailed from Village Pendhari, Tah.
Barghat, District Shioni, (Madhya Pradesh) and the
petitioner also belong to 'Gond' tribe. In the said matter,
after taking into consideration the entire case laws, and
more particularly the judgments reported in Sudhakar
Vithal Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
[2004(4) Mh.L.J. 784], Hitesh Dasiram Murkute vs. State

16
of Maharashtra and ors. [2007(5) Mh.L.J. 454], and lastly
Pankaj Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and ors (2021) 20
SCC 545, the said Bench held that the person like
petitioner is entitled for the benefit and cannot be termed
as a migrant.
13. The entire edifice of the impugned order seems to be
on Sub Rule 3 of Rule 5 of 2003 Rules, which in our view
is misconceived. This Court has rightly observed in the
judgment referred supra, relying on Sudhakar Vithal
Kumbhare (supra), "If a migrant belonged to a
community which was recognised as Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe in any locality which has been divided
upon reorganization of States and his caste is recognised
as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe even in such newly
formed States, the migrant would be entitled to benefit of
reservation even in the State, in which part of the locality
other than his place of origin has gone." The said view
also finds support in the case of Hitesh Dasiram Murkute
referred to supra.”
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the material available on record, it appears that the forefathers of
the petitioner were residents of Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh and
subsequently, the petitioner's father migrated to Dongargarh,
which now falls within the State of Chhattisgarh. Before the
reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, both

17
Balaghat and Dongargarh formed part of the same State.
However, following the reorganisation, Dongargarh became part
of the newly constituted State of Chhattisgarh, whereas Balaghat
remained within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the present
case does not involve migration from one State to another in the
ordinary sense, rather, it concerns a movement from one region of
the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh to another region that
subsequently became part of the State of Chhattisgarh pursuant
to the reorganisation of the State.
9. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner cannot be
rejected without proper consideration of the relevant facts and
applicable legal principles. The objection raised by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Additional Collector that the
petitioner has failed to produce documents pertaining to the period
prior to 1950 cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground to
reject the petitioner's claim without examining the circumstances
arising out of the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Madhya
Pradesh. Since the areas in question formed part of the same
State before reorganisation, the authorities were required to
examine the documents relating to the erstwhile State of Madhya
Pradesh and assess their evidentiary value while determining the
petitioner's claim for issuance of a social status certificate.
10. The authorities were also required to consider the applicable
provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and

18
Verification of Certificate) Rules, 2013, particularly the relevant
provisions governing cases in which the prescribed documents
cannot be produced. The petitioner's inability to produce
documents pertaining to the period prior to 1950 specifically
relating to the present State of Chhattisgarh ought to have been
examined in the context of the historical and geographical
circumstances of the case, along with the other documents
submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim.
11. Furthermore, the authorities were required to consider the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj
Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, (2021) 20 SCC 545, and
Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 510 , insofar as those decisions address
the protection of the rights and privileges of persons affected by
the reorganisation of a State. Although the said decisions arose in
the context of the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Bihar
and the formation of the State of Jharkhand, the principles laid
down therein regarding the consequences of State reorganisation
and the protection of existing rights require due consideration, to
the extent applicable to the facts of the present case. The
authorities must, therefore, examine whether the petitioner's claim
is supported by the relevant historical records, applicable statutory
provisions and the law governing the issuance of social status
certificates. The claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground

19
that the petitioner has not produced documents pertaining to the
period prior to 1950 without undertaking such an examination.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated
12.08.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and
the consequential order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the
Additional Collector are hereby quashed and set aside. The
matter is remitted to the competent authority for fresh
consideration of the petitioner's claim for issuance of a social
status certificate in accordance with law.
13. While reconsidering the matter, the authorities shall examine the
claim of the petitioner in the light of the relevant provisions of the
Rules of 2013, the documents available on record, the
circumstances arising out of the reorganisation of the erstwhile
State of Madhya Pradesh, and the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar (supra) and Akhilesh
Prasad (supra), to the extent applicable to the facts of the present
case. The authorities shall not reject the petitioner's claim solely
on the ground of non-production of documents pertaining to the
period prior to 1950 relating specifically to the present State of
Chhattisgarh, without considering the historical records and other
relevant material produced in support of the claim.
14. The competent authority shall undertake and complete the
aforesaid exercise within a period of 60 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner a

20
reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner shall also be at
liberty to submit a domicile certificate and any other relevant
documents in support of his claim. The authorities shall duly
consider such documents and pass a reasoned order in
accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the law
governing the subject.
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat