Ku. K. V. Revati v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2203 of 2015 • Ku. K. V. Revati D/o K.G.V. Rajan Aged About 46 years, Occupation Service, Posted As Lecturer (Geography) Mayaram Surjan Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of C.G. Through The Principal Secretary School Education Department, Mahandi Bhawan New Raipur, C.G.

2. The Director, Public Instructions, DKS Bhawan, Raipur C.G.

3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

4. The Principal, Mayaram Surjan Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri PK Bhaduri, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 25/06/2015 1.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.Ed. examination; on his 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 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59

and another2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and 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 his case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. certificate on his own expenses after entering into service.

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. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra JUDGE ashu 2006 (II) MPJR -CG 96 WP(S) No. 4310 of 2005