Maya Rani Dutta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 996 of 2020 • Maya Rani Dutta W/o Ravi Dutta Aged About 35 Years Working As Lecturer (Maths) (Nagriya Nikay) At Government Higher Secondary Boys School Katghora, District Korba Chhattsgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Commissioner Urban Aministration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh

5. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Office Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh

6. Block Education Officer, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondents/ State :

Shri Neeraj Pradhan, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 14/02/2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on 28.12.2011 and she joined her duty as a Lecturer (Nagriya Nikay) on 02.01.2012. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner was regularized on 30.04.2014. It is further stated that the petitioner has completed the requisite time of 8 years and she is entitled to get the time

bound pay scale, increment and the revised pay scale. He further submits that the issue with regard to withdrawal/ non grant of increment on the ground of having not passed B.Ed/ D.Ed examination was examined by this Court in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle Vs. State of Chhatisgarh (WPS NO. 4271 of 2017 and batch of petitions, vide order dated 03.11.2017) and various directions have been issued for affording proper opportunity of hearing and then decide the matter.

2. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner's claim would be examined after affording opportunity of hearing in terms of order dated 03.11.2017 passed in case of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra).

3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already made a representation (Annexure P-2) to the Chief Municipal Officer, Katghora. It is directed the respondents shall examine the claim of the petitioner in terms of order passed by this Court in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra) and take appropriate decision thereon. The petitioner may however apprise the respondent authority about order passed bu the Court along with the copy of order passed in Jayant Kumar Patle Vs. State of Chhatisgarh.

4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti