Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.4265 of 2014 • Smt. Shakuntala Kshatriya, W/o Rameshwar Singh Kshatriya, Aged About 45 Years, Working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Block Education Officer, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Joint Director Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No.4262 of 2014 • Santosh Kumar Dubey, S/o Bahoran Prasad Dubey, Aged About 41 Years, Working as Head Master Primary School, Khajura, Navagaon, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Block Education Officer, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Joint Director Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No.6384 of 2014 • Smt. Sushila Thakur, W/o Dharam Singh Syam, Aged About 57 Years, Working as Head Master, Govt. Primary School Uslapur Shanti Nagar Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Director Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners Mr. J. K. Saxena, Advocate For Respondent-State Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. AG and Mr. Soumya Rai, PL Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 09/07/2021 1.
The petitioners' claim for grant of two advance increments in this batch of writ
petitions has been rejected on the ground that they have passed the D.Ed. Examination after 16.06.1993, therefore, they are not entitled for two advance increments.
2.
At the outset, Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that in view of the circular dated 04.07.2017 issued by the State Government, the petitioners are entitled for two advance increments, whereas Mr.
Otwani, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, would submit that according to the order passed by the Division Bench on 04.04.2014 in Writ Appeal No.105/2014, in between State of Chhattisgarh and others vs Dharam Pal Tiwari and other connected matters, the petitioners are not entitled for two advance increments.
3.
Be that as it may, the District Education Officer, Bilaspur is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in light of the circular dated 04.07.2017 and also keeping in view the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.105/2014 and to pass a reasoned and speaking order without being prejudiced by
the order (Annexure-P/1) within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4.
With the aforesaid direction, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to cost (s).
Sd/- Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Nirala