Smt. Sangeeta Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5216 of 2018

1. Smt. Sangeeta Mishra W/o Shri Satyendra Kishore Mishra, Aged About 39 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher And Posted At Govt. Naveen Primary School Pithora, Block Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

2. Rameshwar Hota, S/o Shri Shivshankar Hota, Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Service, Working As Lecturer And Posted At Govt. R.K. Higher Secondary School Pithora, Block Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. R/o Rajasewaiya Khurd, P.O. Pithora, P.S. Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

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

2. Director, Office Of Directorate Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. District Education Officer, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/08/2018 1.

The grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled for the two advance increments for having acquired D.Ed. qualification at their own expenses.

2.

The counsel for the petitioners referring to an order passed by the School Education Department, dated 04.07.2017 submits that in the case of one "Tilak Ram Patel", who was identically placed like the petitioners has been granted the advantage of two annual increments on his acquiring the D.Ed. qualification.

3.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the order passed in the case of "Tilak Ram Patel" by the School

Education Department on 04.07.2017, it is ordered that let the petitioners also make a detailed representation to the respondents No.2 & 3, who in turn shall decide the representation of the petitioner so far as their claim for grant of two advance increments on acquiring the D.Ed. qualification at their own expense.

4. Let a representation be made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and the representation in turn should be decided within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

5.

While deciding the claim, the respondents would keep in mind the order passed in the case of "Tilak Ram Patel". 6.

The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved