Bharat Ram Banjare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2487 of 2016 Bharat Ram Banjare, S/o. Sukhiram Banjare, Aged About 63 Years, R/o. Pikripali, Post Mangaibhata, Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Arang, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Block Education Officer, Block Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Joint Director, Accounts & Treasury, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :

Mr. C.Jayant K.Rao, Advocate For Respondents :

Mr. S.P.Kale, Dy. A.G.

------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 30/06/2016 1.

By this petition, the petitioner claimed the benefit of two advance increments as he had passed B.Ed. examination, on his own cost, after entering into service and the persons who had passed B.Ed. have been given two increments.

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 v. State of M.P. & Ors.1 as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another3. 3.

Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra) 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 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 3 WP (S) No.4130 of 2005

has acquired B.Ed. certificate on his own expenses after entering into service.

4.

Learned 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 and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

6.

In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok