Disposed

Sudama Prasad Chandel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2010WPS/1517/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition seeking advance increments for a teacher upon D.Ed. completion. The court directed the petitioner to make a representation for consideration in light of cited Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sudama Prasad Chandel Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

S.B. (Service Matterl

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

(CHHATTISGARH)

¶5

WRFT pErmoN rsi NO. <1~-h /2oio. ^^g^ 11 ligj

¶6

i^.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

Sudania Prasad Chandel, son of ^ Makhan lal Chandel, aged about 42 years, working as Asst. Teacher at Govt. Priinary School, Nevsa, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

versus

¶10

'•&/-

¶11

Respondents' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through
f
Secretary, Education Department,
D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.
.^/ /
2. District Education Officer, District
^w/
^'/^y^^/ Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
^^"
./'6^/ 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury
^"..' /
and Pension, Bilaspur,
^ll.*./ '^"
^r' Chhattisgarh.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARIICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶12

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶14

WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1517 of 2010

¶15

Petitioner Sudama Prasad Chandel

¶16

Versus

¶17

Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶18

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶19

(SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.)

¶20

Present:Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri Ashwani Shukla & Shri J.K. Saxena, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶21

Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate with Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State.

¶22

ORDER (ORAU (Passedon 8tt1 DayofApril, 2010)

¶23

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during the course of service.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors.as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj K Municipal Corporation, Durg & anothet2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanothe^ .

¶25

Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities to decide his case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered .

¶27

and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Q^d Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶28