Disposed

Phelix Kumar Lakda v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2007WP/7238/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of several writ petitions filed by education teachers regarding compensation for services. Disposing of the petitions based on a prior decision, the court directed verification regarding certificate acquisition and advance increments rather than deciding merits immediately. No order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; petitions disposed subject to verification of facts regarding certificate payment and advance increments.

Phelix Kumar Lakda Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

.„© »4«tf•.•^s

¶2

(' ^fcreT^

¶3

IN THE_HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. "^ '2-2 8 /20Q6

¶4

WRIT P_ETn'ION_UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

¶5

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

v.--
.4^
^^y.;*' ••:.'-' .'

¶8

^^Phelbc Kumar Lakda (B.Ed.), aged about 49 son of Shri years,

¶9

Bheemsen Lakda, Upper Division Teacher (Head Master), Shashkiya Purva Madhyamik Kanya Aashram Bangaon, Vikas Khan

¶10

Farsabahar, Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh, through

¶14

- Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)

¶15

X3-HC-78

¶16

3:^'3ii9l9?> ®T^wre>Rtfiwy ^•^^-^Z-^^I^G HIHW\ shWh 200

¶17

3<1^1 4ach (yl^si^ff)

¶18

ai^rwfeNi cIHT^TRWshll'b	??trRRBfer3Tf^T iiiiFn'fl-iiiiii) fffWt<Riwi< ^ari^iTsn^'r
	3-1^2007
	Mr. A.N.Bhakta, Mr. Ajay Rajput, Mr. B.L.Dembra, Vf Ashwani Shukla, counse! Mr. Arun Sao, Governmer(t GovernmentAdvocats anB for ths State/respondsntsj ^hrivastava, Mr. Anil Singh 10r. Vijay K. Deshmukh and Mr. ^or the petitioner(s). Advocate, Mr. Sushil Dubey, Ms. Sunita Jain. Panel Lawyer
	With the consent of learn< matter is heard finallyand dispo^ Common ordsr dictated i
Gopal	Sd/- sa^K.Agnawri Judge

P.T.O.

||U)
to
16
ID-
1(1)
\tt|i'.9
1»>.
lt~»-
iF-d^
10
|3
1(1)||A
<Btn
•g
o
!^i
\tl.
1(1)
l&r|<s-
f"4-
1"^-
;0
i:I
in>||/-l
<1>
(i)u
,0
l:.iIri.
|n>:s
ISi-|||3©
U)ao^
;n>
1^1
ic-.s"
M
tB|||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |"i
<Bo
VI
El3
<B
3
l(fl
It:
1</1|BK
B)3
E>
OT
S)|Z
M|wsr
•;'a'
a>
uu^
7®
F*
VI
o-
rj"a"
tfi|<s
"<;-9
la
(Bea
-<
(tf|o|ff
3'
3-
B>
F'¥
.t»
(QQ
3-
ea
E)3
Q-
f-^r
wj"
(1)|:r
ff>x
£:
3s>Js
j—
0g
B)|z
u
CQ|v>
1^1^ks'
C;.
"••••it
?'..
u>
ia
C)
"th1lI
B>•^
a.
s-
(1>
3
7:.
u>
o
c»
sr
o|ii
w|z
m
s?"
Sa<
-I|'r~|

¶23

Peti.tioner	versus	(S.)N0. ShankarLalSoni
Rsspondsnts		itate Govt. of Chhattisearh and others
	WR5T	(S.) OF
Petitioner	versus	Bhuwan Lal Sahu
Respondsnte	WRIT PI=TiT -W¥r<<tli 3 '£^U 5	The State Government ofChhattisgarh and another !nM -'fi 1 N0 75Sf I'i^i'V
Petitioner		Smt. Sandhya Sah'
Rssoondents	T PETl'	The State Government ofChhattisgarh 'S.) N0.7257 OF 200)
Petitioner	versus	RamakantChandrakar
Respondents		The State Govsrnment ofChhattisgarh and another

OF 200'

2- &

PETIT10N SS.)

Patltioner Tameshwar Prasad Dewangan Versus Respondents The State Governmsnt of Chhattisgarh and another

¶28

Pstitioner		Ghanshyam Singh Deshmukh
	versus
Respondents		Ths State Government ofChhattisga ana anot y- il 3 i
	r opT!T i i t	ir»Mis i ifc^1'^ iti=f a !w>~ £UUO
Petittoner	vsrsus	Bhuvneshv/ar Pras.ad Chandrakar
0iespondents		The State Government ofCh and another ttisaarh
	MRIT PPTIT '^3"'iLi 3 r'i-. ai ;	inM " i^^i'^
petitioner		Jay Kumar Patll
	versus
Resoondents		The State Governmsrit ofChhattisgarh and another

¶29

		PET!	i.7282 OF 20<
	Petitioner		ifiiy r^aiii
	Respondent;		The State Government ofChhattisgarh and another
		PETiT	iON (S.) N0.72S3 OF 201
	Petitioner	•'ersus	Lal Singh Dhankar
	iuenis		'he State Governrnent ofChhattlsgarh and another
			^.1
	Petitionsr		Vishnu Prasad Deshmukh
^	Respondents	versus	T'ne State Government and another
		t?@iT S^TST Fj^.i j f°'£;..li 1	I^?^! J% ^ ^ir^. '7^^^ f^S ?3^ l^f-4g I'S.J ItiW,.? A^.i^wr^
	Petitioner		ShekhArman K4usalman
		versus
	tespondente		State Govt. ofChhatxisgarh and another

¶30

¶31

WRIT PET1TION (S.l N0.7297 OF 2006

¶32

Petltioner

¶33

Arjun Singh Sahu

¶34

versus Respondents The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another

¶35

	PETIT	10N (S.) N0.?:
Petitioner	versus	Hari Shankar Sahu
Respondents		Ths State Governnient ofChhattisgarh and another
	!T,PETrT	!ON (S,1NQJ299 QF 2001
	versus	Rameah Kumar Barie
Rs		The State Govsrnmsnt ofChhattisgai and another
		{S.1 N0.7: sn<
PetitioRer		Smt. Budhantin Bai Netam
	versus
idsnts		The State Government of and another Chhattisgarh

¶36

	WRiT PSTIT	ION (S.5 N0.7:
Petittoner	versus	Govind Prasad Soni
Rsspondents		State ofChhattisgarh and others
Pstitioner	vereus	Lekh Ram Ss.ht
ResBondents		State ofChhattisgarh and others
	WRiT	(S.1NO,72S1_QI
Petitionsr	versus	Smt. Nlshi S'nan/a
Respondents		State ofChhaBisgarh snd others
	'.111	'i^F4] .'S.) N T^j 01
Petltioner		Yogeshwar Prasad Ganguiy
Ressondsnts		State ofChhattisgarh and othsrs

tas

II- ZUUn<

Petitioner

i.K.Sharma .

versus

The State of Chhattisgarh and others

(S.5 N0,7279 OF2COI

Petitioner

i.R.Baranas

"ersus

Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶48

rTOETmON_!j OF

¶49

'etitioner

¶50

Dwarika Prasad Ratnakar

¶51

versus

¶52

Respondents

¶53

State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs

¶54

Prssent : IVr. A.N.Bhakta, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, W.r. B.L.Dembra, Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh and Mr. Ashwan' Shukla, counse! for the petitioner(s).

¶55

Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate, Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Gcvernment Advocate and Ms. Sunlta Jain, Panei Lav/yer for the State/resDondents.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(Passed^{on3rdDayof January,2007)}

¶58

Learnsd counsei appearing for the petitioners as siso for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of !av/ involved in the pressnt batch of writ petltions are squarely covsred by the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhsradwaj ation. Durs and another .

¶59

¶60

ln subsequsnt casss, i.e., Writ Pstition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 {Gopesh Kumar Verms 'v's. The State Govt. of Chhsttssgarh and anotheii) and other connected matters, decided by thls Court on 15-12-2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by ths Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopa! snd t'ne prospsctus of Dipioma in Education Examination, it was clarified that the nomenclaturs of the Basic Training institute, i.s., B.T.I. has been c'nanged and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., D.Ed. Accordingiy, the D.Ed. Certificate holders are aiso covered by ths dscision in Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanother) (Supra).

¶61

For the aforementioned reasons, the v/rit petitions are dispossd of in terms of the dscision of this Court In the mattsr of Yas^vant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), subject to verification of 'the fact '.ivhether as to the petltionsrs have acquirsd B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. Certificates at their own expenses as per the circutars dated 24-12-

¶62

'C^B!T

¶63

1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether they hs.ve bsen paid advance incrsments or not. No order as to costs.

¶64

A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connectsd writ petitions.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

Satish K. Agnihotn Judge

¶67

1 2008 (II) MPJR-CG 96

¶68

Gops

Phelix Kumar Lakda v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phelix Kumar Lakda v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs Ram Kishore Sharma and Others

Somaru Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.Veena Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lekhram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhelu Ram Sildar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kishsore Kumar Ghosh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.