Dr. Shobha Shrivastava Vs State Govt. of C.G. — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dr. Shobha Shrivastava Vs State Govt. of C.G. — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No increments granted by the Court; the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon) to decide the petitioner's claim for two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. in accordance with prevalent rules and regulations, preferably within three months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who passed the Ph.D. examination at her own expense while in service, is entitled to be granted two advance increments from the date of passing the Ph.D. examination, pursuant to the State Government circulars dated 08.05.1973 and 18.11.1992, notwithstanding that her application was earlier rejected by respondent No. 2. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court did not itself adjudicate entitlement to the increments; it disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon) to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's claim for two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D., preferably within three months from receipt of a copy of the order, and made it the petitioner's responsibility to apprise respondent No. 3 of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No. 3 is expected to take its decision on the grant of advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. on the basis of the prevalent rules and regulations.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPS No. 374 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.; order dated 10.10.2025): Dr. Shobha Shrivastava, serving as Principal of a Government Higher Secondary School in District Rajnandgaon, sought two advance increments from the date of passing her Ph.D. examination undertaken at her own expense while in service, relying on State Government circulars dated 08.05.1973 and 18.11.1992 which, per the petitioner, prescribe neither any procedure for obtaining permission nor any prescribed authority. Her application, routed through the District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon with his recommendation, was rejected by the Director of Public Instructions (respondent No. 2) on the technical ground that permission had been obtained from the Principal of the School rather than from respondent No. 2. Counsel for the State objected that approval was not taken from the competent authority, while acknowledging the Ph.D. had been obtained. The Court heard both sides, did not conclusively adjudicate entitlement, and disposed of the petition by directing respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon) to take an appropriate decision on the claim in accordance with prevalent rules and regulations, preferably within three months, leaving it to the petitioner to apprise that authority of the order.

1

2025:CGHC:50745

NAFR

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 374 of 2023

Dr. Shobha Shrivastava D/o Shri Shiv Shrivastava Aged About 52 Years Post Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Beeja-Bhata, Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Govt. Of C.G. Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director Of Public Instructions Indravati Bhavan, 1st Floor, New Raipur (C.G.)

3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

--- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

10.10.2025

By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order respondent No. 2 to grant two advance increments to the petitioner from the date of passing Ph.D. examination on own expense while in service.

10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.

2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Circulars of the State Government dated 08.05.1973 and 18.11.1992, the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as the petitioner has passed Ph.D. examination on own expenses while in service and in the said circulars, no procedure has been prescribed or obtaining permission and neither any prescribe authority has been mentioned in the said circulars and in this regard she was submitted an application to respondent No. 2 through District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, who has forwarded the same with recommendation, but respondent No. 2 has rejected the said application of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments from the date of passing Ph.D. examination on the technical ground that the petitioner has obtained permission from Principal of School, she should have obtained permission from respondent No. 2. Hence this petition filed by the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State has made an objection that the approval was not taken from the competent authority, but the fact remains that the petitioner has obtained Ph.D. degree, for which, two advance increments are required to be given as per policy of the State Government.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

Given the said facts, let respondent No. 3 take an appropriate decision so far as the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. be decided at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondent No. 3 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

Respondent No.3 is expected to take a decision on the basis of

3

prevalent rules and regulations so far as grant of advance increments

on acquiring Ph.D. is concerned.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

JUDGE

AMIT PATEL