Smt. Pramila Netam v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1421 of 2015 • Smt. Pramila Netam W/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Netam, Aged About 46 years, Assistant Teacher Presently Posted Pre-Matric Girls Hostel Scheduled Tribes, Kawardha, R/o Rajmahal Colony, Ward No.9, P.S.-Kawardha, Civil & Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Education Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director, Account Treasury & Pension, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri AV Shridhar, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 23/04/2015 1.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of D.Ed. examination; on her own cost, after seeking permission from the department.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.1, as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 2006 (II) MPJR -CG 96

another3.

3.

Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondents to decide her case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts. 4.

Learned State counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

5.

In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE ashu WP(S) No. 4310 of 2005