Kalpana Bhagat v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5652 of 2018

1. Kalpana Bhagat D/o Jagjeevan Ram Bhagat, Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer ( Panchayat ) At Government Higher Secondary School, Sonar Deori, Block Pallari, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Mohini Banjare W/o Lomash Kumar Banjare, Aged About 39 Years Working As Lecturer ( Panchayat) At Government Higher Secondary School, Jarve, Block Pallari, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

3. Ku. Sunita Dhritlahare D/o Vinod Kumar Dhritlahare, Aged About 31 Years, Working As Lecturer ( Panchayat ) At Government Higher Secondary School, Jarve, Block Pallari, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatpara Chhattisgarh

4. Sumita Prabha Minj D/o Libnus Minj, Aged About 33 Years, Working As Lecturer ( Panchayat) Government Higher Secondary School, Jarve, Block Pallari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

5. Chunni Lal Verma S/o Late Salik Ram Verma, Aged About 41 Years Working As Lecturer ( Panchayat ) Government Higher Secondary School, Gidhpuri, Block Pallari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

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

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

For Petitioners :

Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate For State :

Shri Arvind Dubey, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 30.08.2018

1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, whereby the increment granted to the Petitioners is being withdrawn on the ground that they have not passed B.Ed/D. Ed examination.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the issue with regard to withdrawal/non-grant of increment on the ground of having not passed B.Ed/D.Ed examination was examined by this Court in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No.4271 of 2017 and batch of petitions vide order dated 03.11.2017) and various directions have been issued for affording proper opportunity of hearing and then decide the matter.

3. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Petitioners' claim would be examined after affording opportunity of hearing in terms of order dated 03.11.2017 passed in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra).

4. Considering the aforesaid submission, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Respondents for examination of Petitioners' claim in terms of order passed by this Court in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra) and to take appropriate decision thereon.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Bhola