← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/715/2016disposed off

Bamhan Ram Netam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-03-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.715 of 2016 Bamhan Ram Netam, son of Shri Mataram Netam, aged about 45 years, posted as Headmaster, Government High School, Bansgaon, resident of behind Shiv Mandir, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (CG).

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (CG).

2. The Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Raipur (CG).

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (CG).

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG).

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 09/03/2016 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not been granted two advance increments after completion of B.Ed. Examination on his own expenses, during service, and his case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg & Another1.

1 2006(II) MPJR-CG 96

2.

However, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that respondents authorities would examine the matter and take decision in this regard.

3.

Be that as it may, if the petitioner prefers representation highlighting his grievances within two weeks from today, the respondents authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law in light of decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and pass necessary orders within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of representation.

4.

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

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE L/-