Sona Lal Dhritlahre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2390 of 2015

1. Sona Lal Dhritlahre S/o Shri Ratiram Dhritlahre Aged About 54 years Working As Headmaster At Govt. Middle School Hichha, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

2. Sanad Yadav S/o Sarju Ram Yadav Aged About 53 Years Working Headmaster At Govt. Primary School, Baronda Bazar, Block Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

3. Roshan Lal Sahu S/o Samaru Ram Sahu Aged About 54 Years Working Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Rumekel, Block Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

4. Nirwandas Manikpuri S/o Baituldas Aged About 36 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Middle School, Achhridih, Block Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

5. Dhruv Kumar Barik S/o Rathi Lal Barik Aged About 50 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt Middle School, Ganekera, Block Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

6. Dinesh Kumar Dadsena S/o Hemlal Dadsena Aged About 48 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Middle School Bansula, Block Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

7. Arun Pradhan S/o Raidhar Patel Aged About 52 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Middle School Pathrala, Block Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

8. Vasudev Sao Vrind S/o Baijnath Sao Aged About 47 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Middle School, Rajpalpur, Block Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

9. Smt. Mamta Sharma W/o Shri Ramesh Sharma Aged About 45 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Primary School, Labhrakhurd, Block Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 10.Smt. Laxmi Dhruv W/o Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 46 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Primary School, Mongra, Block Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 11.Smt. Sangeeta Mishra W/o Satyendra Kishore Mishra Aged About 36 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Naveen Primary School, Pithora, Block Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Manatralaya, New Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

3. Block Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

4. Block Education Officer Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

5. Block Education Officer, Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri PK Bhaduri, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 06/07/2015 1.

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

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 another3.

3.

Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to make representations to the respondents to decide their cases 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 petitioners make representations, 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) 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 2006 (II) MPJR -CG 96 WP(S) No. 4310 of 2005

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 petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- J U D G E Prashant Kumar Mishra Ashu