Disposed

Dharam Pal Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2010WPS/1533/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this service matter, the petitioner challenged his inability to claim two advance increments earned during self-funded higher studies. The Court held the issue was not res integra, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, and directed the respondents to consider a representation from the petitioner within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondent authorities; the court was empowered to dispose the petition before that representation is considered.

Dharam Pal Tiwari Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

S.B. (Service Matteri

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT22SGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

(CHHATTISGARH1

¶5

WRIT PETITION (S\ N0. | ^'^ / 2010.

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

Dharam Pal Tiwari, son of Manrakhan Lal Tiwari, aged about 45 years, working as U.T.D. at Govt.Middle School, Kapari, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

versus

¶9

Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through t Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.

¶10

.^s/
^:y
^''•^ /
^.-,; ^.
^
^y

¶11

Distnct Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Joint Director, Accounts, Treasuiy and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶14

¶15

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶16

¶17

WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1533 of2010

¶18

Petitioner Dharam Pal Tiwari

¶19

Versus

¶20

Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶21

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

¶22

Present:Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri Ashwani Shukla & Shri J.K. Saxena,

¶23

Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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 K State of M.P. & Ors.r as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & anothef2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanothep .

¶28

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.

¶29

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 ofthe dedsions pf the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra)Q3 well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar B/iaradwa/and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶30