Jageshwar Singh Deewan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2024WPS/7425/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess payment; two advance increments for D.Ed./B.Ed. qualification acquired during service; government teacher/lecturer; Treasury endorsement in service book; respondent No. 5 Joint Director Accounts; covered-case parity with Lekhram Matra W.P.(S.) No. 6140 of 2019 and W.A. No. 150 of 2021; W.P.(S.) No. 6927 of 2011; State concession/non-opposition; mandamus; quashing of recovery; Chhattisgarh High Court; service and pension law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; recovery proceedings for the two increments granted on account of D.Ed. qualification obtained after employment quashed, the case being covered by the order in W.P.(S.) No. 6140 of 2019 as affirmed in W.A. No. 150 of 2021. ¶¶29

Jageshwar Singh Deewan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery proceedings issued in furtherance of the entry made by respondent No. 5 in the petitioner's service book, recovering the two advance increments granted for the D.Ed. qualification, are liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

All proceedings for recovery initiated against the petitioner for the two increments granted on account of obtaining the D.Ed. qualification after employment stand quashed, with consequences to follow.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's case is covered by the order dated 16.08.2019 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 6140 of 2019 (Lekhram Matra), affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 150 of 2021; the State did not dispute or oppose this submission; accordingly the writ petition is allowed.

¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), Parth Prateem Sahu, J. — WPS No. 7425 of 2019, decided 02/12/2024 (NAFR): The petitioner, working as a Lecturer, had been granted two advance increments for obtaining the D.Ed. qualification after entering service pursuant to a State Government circular; the Treasury thereafter made an endorsement in his service book directing recovery of the increments as excess payment. Counsel relied on W.P.(S.) No. 6927 of 2011 (decided 06.12.2013, holding that persons who obtain B.Ed./D.Ed. degrees at their own expenses before or after entering service are entitled to two annual increments) and on Lekhram Matra vs. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(S.) No. 6140 of 2019 (allowed 16.08.2019), affirmed in W.A. No. 150 of 2021 (dismissed 09.09.2021). The State did not dispute the submission that the petitioner's case was covered. Holding the case covered, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed all recovery proceedings for the two increments granted on account of the D.Ed. qualification obtained after employment.

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:47238

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 7425 of 2019

¶6

1 - Jageshwar Singh Deewan S/o Shri Bhagirathi Deewan Aged About 48 Years Working As Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Lamkeni, Block Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - District Education Officer Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Block Education Officer Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Lamkeni, Block Bagbahara, DistrictMahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Joint Director Accounts, Treasury And Pension, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.).

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

ORDER ON BOARD

¶19

02/12/2024

¶20

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus setting aside recovery proceedings issued in furtherance of the entry made by respondent No. 5 in the service book of the petitioner.

¶22

Digitally SHAYNA signed by KADRI SHAYNA KADRI

¶23

2 / 3

¶24

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the benefit of two advance increment to the petition on account of D.Ed..

¶25

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relif as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 23.08.1994. Pursuant to circular issued by State Government, he was granted two increments for obtaining qualification of D.Ed. after his employment, however, subsequently, an endorsement has been made by Treasury in Service Book that two advance increments given to petitioner against obtaining of qualification of D.Ed. to be recovered as an excess payment made to petitioner. He submits that issue with regard to grant of increments on account of obtaining qualification of D.Ed. while in service has already been considered in W.P.(S.) No. 6927 of 2011 decided on 06.12.2013, wherein, it has been held that persons who have obtained B.Ed./D.Ed. degree on their own expenses before and after entering into service are entitled for two annual increments. Case of petitioner is covered with the said judgment and therefore, endorsement made for recovery of excess payment made of two advance increments is bad in law. He contended that one of the similarly situated teacher has approached this Court by way of filing writ petition bearing W.P.(S.) No. 6140 fo 2019 in case of Lekhram Matra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, which was allowed vide order dated 16.08.2019. State of Chhattisgarh has challenged the order passed in writ petition by way of filing writ appeal bearing W.A. No. 150 of 2021 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2021. Case of petitioner is squarely covered by the aforementioned orders.

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is not disputed by learned State counsel.

¶29

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, in particular, submission of learned counsel for petitioner is not opposed by learned State counsel that case of petitioner is covered with the order dated 16.08.2019 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 6140 of 2019, affirmed in writ appeal No. 150 of 2021, writ petition is allowed.

¶30

As a consequence, any proceedings for recovery initiated against petitioner for two increments which has been granted on account of obtaining D.Ed qualification after employment would stand quashed with the consequence to follow.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Shayna

Jageshwar Singh Deewan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jageshwar Singh Deewan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwat Vs Rohit Kumar

Hari Narayan Kosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Ratre Vs Shayam Ratan Ratre

Pt. Ravi Shnker Shukla Vs Regional Director and Anr.

Kailash Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh