Smt. Lalita v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 681 of 2019 Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Dhaneshwar Kujur Aged About 32 Years Working As Teacher T.(L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Middle School Chirmi Block ,khadgawa ,baikunthpur ,district Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary ,department Of Panchayat Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi ,bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer, Baikunthpur ,district Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Baikunthpur District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. U.P.S. Sahu, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01/02/2019

1. The limited prayer which the petitioners have sought in this writ petition is for a direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioners for grant of two advance increments on their 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 petitioners is based on the fact that the nature of duties discharged by them as Shiksha Karmis are 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 petitioners. The petitioners shall in this regard make a detailed representation to the respondents within a period of 3 weeks from today.

3. Given the nature of dispute and also the fact that the claim of the petitioners 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 ends of justice would meet if the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 & 2 to take a decision on the representation, so filed by the petitioners and thereby decide, as to whether the petitioners would also be entitled for similar benefits 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 petitioners to bring the order of this Court to the notice of respondents 1 & 2 along with any fresh representation, if they so prefer.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case so far as the entitlement of the petitioners are concerned. The Respondents shall be at liberty to take a decision independently. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit