Nasim Ali Ansari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 8306 of 2019 Nasim Ali Ansari S/o Shri Abdul Sattar Aged About 47 Years Lecturer Posted At Government Higher Secondary School, Sirsi, Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, R/o Village Sirsi, Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department T, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Public Education Secretariat, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mrs. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 15-10-2019

1. Heard.

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

3. The claim of the petitioner is based on the fact that the nature of duties discharged by them as Shiksha Karmis are identical and similar to the government teachers and their 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. The

petitioner in this regard has made representation to the respondents vide Annexure P-6.

4. 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 1 & 2 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. 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 1 & 2 along with any fresh representation, if they so prefer.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion 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/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Rao