Disposed

Ramawtar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2010WPS/1528/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking direction to grant two advance increments on the petitioner's own expenses for passing a D.Ed. examination, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that nothing required adjudication as covered by Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to file a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a representation to respondent authorities for grant of increments.

Ramawtar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

^ r^^'^_
^

¶2

S.B. {Service Matteri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
(CHHATTISGARH) ^^s -^l
0 / 2010.
WRIT PETITION fS) N0.
PETITIONER: Ramawtar Sahu, Kejaram Sahu, aged
about 45 years, working as Head
Master at Govt.Primary School,
Pakaria, Block Takhatpur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
versus
•<vs '"" ^ A.. Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through
Secretary, Education Department,
D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.
2. District Education Officer, District
^r/,'o/
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
A%/
^/¥^>'
^>v 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasuiy
sfid Pension, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh,
sT'
..^l
^ WRrr PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE
l-p- 4.
CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA

¶3

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1528 of2010

¶5

Petitioner Ramawtar Sahu

¶6

Versus

¶7

Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶8

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.)

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 8 Day ofApril, 2010)

¶12

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.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is n.o 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 v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & anothei2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma K The StateGovt. of Chhattisgarh andanotheP.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

In view of foregoing, according to fhe tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petitionforadjudication.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

Amit/Arun

¶19

sd/.. ^ SatishK.Agnibom

¶20

1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 22006(11)'MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005

Ramawtar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramawtar Sahu 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

Smt. Radha Tiwari Vs Sec.Govt.of M.P.Local Self Govt. and Ors.

Kalawati Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Nirdavan Singh Ramo Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sudama Prasad Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dharam Pal Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.