Govind Ram Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1385 of 2019 Govind Ram Dewangan S/o Mohar Sai Dewangan Aged About 45 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.), Posted At Govt. Middle School, Mandawa, Block-Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Secretary Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distirct- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Atal Nagar, Rapur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Jila Panchayat, BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

5. District Education Officer Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. G. A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27/02/2019

1. The limited prayer which the petitioner has sought in this writ petition is for a direction to respondent No. 1 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner 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 petitioner is based on the fact that the nature of duties discharged by him as Shiksha Karmi is identical and similar to the Government Teacher and their services have also now got merged with the Education Department. Therefore, the benefits

which are being extended to the Government Teacher should also be extended to the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner for redressal of the grievance, till date, not moved any representation. Let the petitioner makes a detailed representation to the respondents in this regard.

3. Given the nature of dispute and also the fact that the claim of the petitioner 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 petitioner and shall decide as to whether the petitioner would also be entitled for similar benefits as are being granted to the regular government teachers. It is ordered accordingly.

4. 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 petitioner to bring the order of this Court to the notice of respondents 1 & 2 along with any fresh representation, if the petitioners, so prefers.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case so far as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned. The respondents shall be at liberty to take a decision independently. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Jyoti JUDGE