Disposed

Neetu Sharma (Before Marrige Neetu Shukla) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Nov 2019WPS/8799/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a state government school lecturer, sought advance increments based on service equivalence with regular teachers. The High Court declined to decide on merits, directing respondents to take a decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide within four months if petitioner is entitled to advance increments similar to regular teachers.

Neetu Sharma (Before Marrige Neetu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP(S) No.8799 of 2019

¶5

Neetu Sharma (Before Marrige Neetu Shukla) W/o Utsav Kumar Sharma Aged About 39 Years Working As Lecturer English (L.B.) and Posted At Government Girls High School Amne, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Education Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

District Education Officer Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

	---- Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/ State	: Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

26/11/2019

¶14

The limited prayer which the petitioner has sought in this writ petition is for a direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioners for grant of two advance increments on their obtaining B.Ed./D.Ed. certificate both prior to appointment as well as subsequent to the appointment which is being otherwise provided to the Govt. teachers.

¶15

The claim of the petitioner is based on the fact that the nature of duties discharged by them as Shiksha Karmis are identical and similar to the government teachers and his services has also now got merged with the Education Department. Therefore, the benefits which are being extended to the government teachers should also be extended

¶16

¶17

to the petitioner.

¶18

Given the nature of dispute and also the fact that the claim of the petitioner would require a policy decision on the part of the State Govt., this court does not intend to keep the petition pending any further, rather ends of justice would meet if the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 & 2 to take a decision in this regard as to whether the petitioner would also be entitled for similar benefits as are being granted to the regular government teachers. It is ordered accordingly. Let this exercise be concluded within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to bring the order of this Court to the notice of respondents 1 & 2 along with any fresh representation, if they so prefer.

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case so far as the entitlement of the petitioners are concerned. The Respondents shall be at liberty to take a decision independently.

¶20

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶21

yasmin

Neetu Sharma (Before Marrige Neetu Shukla) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu Sharma (Before Marrige Neetu Shukla) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirith Ram Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhan Singh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikram Singh Rajput Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kunti Rana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Sarojni Alma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh