Seema Nonhare Earlier Seema Mahobiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5015 of 2019 Seema Nonhare Earlier Seema Mahobiya W/o Shailesh Kumar Nonhare Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Boys Primary School Singhola Block Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary, Department Of Edudcation Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

6. District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

7. Block Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09/07/2019

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 her 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.

-22. The claim of the petitioner is based on the fact that the nature of duties discharged by her as Shiksha Karmi is identical and similar to the government teachers and her services have also now got merged with the Education Department. Therefore, the benefits which are being extended to the government teachers should also be extended to the petitioner.

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 in this regard 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 they so prefer.

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) Judge Jyotijha