High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/7026/2018disposed off

Rajendra Singh Otti v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-10-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7026 of 2018 Rajendra Singh Otti S/o Late Shri Chhakelal Otti, Aged About 42 Years, Occupation Service, Working As Upper Division Teacher Presently Posted At Government Middle School Sachratola, Block Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Block Education Officer, Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 25.10.2018 Heard.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D.Ed. Examination on his own expenses, before entering into service.

3. 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 v. State of MP & Ors., 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another, 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 and Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. the State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another, W.P.(S) No. 4130 of 2005.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra) as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the light of the aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

6. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nothing survives in this petition for adjudication.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Bhola