Rohit Kumar Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7504 of 2019 Rohit Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Gopinath Mishra Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer ( L.B. ) And Posted At Government Higher Secondary School Sher, Block Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer , District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

5. Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

6. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Sher, Block Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. K. K. Dewangan, Advocate For State :

Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/09/2019

1. The limited prayer which the petitioner has sought in this writ petition is for a direction to respondent no. 2 & 3 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments on his

-2obtaining 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.

2. The claim of the petitioner is based on the fact that the nature of duties discharged by him as Shiksha Karmi is identical and similar to the government teachers and his 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 2 & 3 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 2 & 3 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 Rohit