High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5031/2016disposed off

Smt. Lata Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-02-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5031 of 2016

1. Smt. Lata Shukla W/o Shri Atul Kumar Shukla Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Lab Technician, Government D.B. Girls Postgraduate College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Commissioner-Cum-Director, Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarhr.

3. Principal, Government D.B. Girls Postgraduate College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Joint Director, Treasury And Accounts, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Shri Arun Sao, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, Ag. Chief Justice Order On Board 17/02/2017 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

02. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of annual increment from the date of her initial appointment.

03. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Lab Technician on 23.8.1991 and thereafter she was regularized on 15.12.2008. Pursuant to circular dated 25.10.1993 issued by the erstwhile State of MP, the petitioner was granted annual increment, however, subsequently the same was withdrawn in view of circular issued in the year 1996.

04. Counsel for the petitioner submits that benefit of annual increment

from the initial date of appointment has already been granted to number of persons and various petitions have been disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider the claim of such persons. He has referred to the orders passed by this Court in WPS Nos. 5958/11, 6128/16 & 6117/16. He submits that the present petition may also be disposed of directing the respondents to decide the pending representations (Annexure P/16 & P/17) filed by the petitioner in terms of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions.

05. State counsel has no objection to the proposition put forth by the petitioner. He, however, submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to respondent No.1 along with copy of this order and her earlier representations and in turn, the same will be decided in accordance with law.

06. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation along with copy of this order and her earlier representations (Annexure P/16 & P/17) to respondent No.1. In the eventuality of filing such representation, it is expected from respondent No.1 to decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation, subject to entitlement of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

Sd/ (Pritinker Diwaker) Ag. Chief Justice Khan