Disposed

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2020WPS/6323/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction for two advance increments due to subsequent qualification, relying on precedents. The Bench declined to decide merits, holding the matter required a policy decision by the State.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to decide within four months whether petitioner is entitled to two advance increments similar to government teachers.

Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

WPS No. 6323 of 2017

¶3

Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ramlal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years Posted As Head Master, R/o Village Tumdiboard, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

District Public Instructions Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur

¶10

---Respondents

¶11

For petitioner – Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For State- Shri Kapil Maini, PL.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order

¶13

06/02/2020

¶14

Heard.

¶15

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 petitioner for grant of two advance increments on his 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. 2. The claim of the petitioner is based on the fact that the nature of duties discharged by him as Assistant Teacher is identical and similar to the Government Teachers and their services have also now got merged with the Education Department. Therefore, the benefits which are being extended to the government teachers should also be extended to the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of

¶17

this Court rendered in Kunwar Kant Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No.6927 of 2011 decided on 06.12.2013) which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 105 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Dharam Pal Tiwari) and would submit that the petitioner who has acquired certificate of D.Ed., after 01.03.1999 is entitled for the benefit of two advance increments.

¶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 the ends of justice would meet if the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to take a decision in this regard as to whether the petitioner would also be entitled for a similar benefit 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 along with any fresh representation, if he so prefers.

¶19

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

¶20

(Goutam Bhaduri)

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

gouri

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Sharma 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awadh Ram Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vidyadas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gautam Singh Thakur Vs the Chairman, Steel Authority of India Limited

Prabhat Kumar Verma Vs Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ano.

Rupesh Kumar Sharma Vs Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla and Anr.

Premlal Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh