Shiv Shekhar Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2784 of 2013 Shiv Shekhar Singh, aged about 49 years, son of late Shri Kishori Singh, working as Upper Division Teacher, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, District Koria (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (CG)

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal & Welfare Department, Baikunthpur, District Koria (CG)

4. Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG)

5. Block Education Officer, Manendragarh, District Koria (CG)

6. Principal, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Mandendragarh, District Koria (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For State :

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 10.10.2018 The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents for grant of two advance increments on his having obtained the qualification of D.Ed. on 01.03.1999 on his own cost. 2.

Counsel for the parties make a fair statement that the issue involved in the instant case stands already decided in a bunch of writ petitions by

this High Court in WPS No. 3793/2013 and other analogous petitions decided on 06.12.2013 and which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.105/2014 decided on 04.04.2014. 3.

Given the said fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands already adjudicated upon by the Single Bench as well as by the Division Bench and on perusal of the records it is revealed that the petitioner has obtained D.Ed. Qualification in 1999 on his own cost, the petitioner would also be entitled for the same benefit as has been granted to the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions. 4.

Accordingly, the present writ petition also stands allowed in similar terms as has been decided in WPS 3739/2013 on 06.12.2013 with other bunch of petitions and the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits.

5.

The writ petition thus stands allowed. Needless to mention that the relief so granted shall be subject to verification of the facts and comparing the claim of the petitioner at par with the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai