Smt. Irshad Begum v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.6500 OF 2019 Smt. Irshad Begum W/o Md. Samim Beg Aged About 54 Years Occupation- Teacher (LB) Resident Of Masjid Marg, Ward No. 3, Gaurela - Pendra District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar District- Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director School Education Department Indrawati Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The District Education Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Block Education Officer Block Gourela, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Vivek Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27.08.2019

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

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondents to decide his case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts.

2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 2006 (II) MPJR -CG 96 WP(S) No. 4310 of 2005

4. Learned State counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, 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) 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 petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder