Smt. Veena Lahre (Smt. Veena Vikrant Singh) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 8999 of 2019 • Smt. Veena Lahre (Smt. Veena Vikrant Singh) D/o Shri B.R. Lahre Aged About 42 Years W/o Dr. Vikrant Singh, Assistant Teacher (L.B.) posted at Government Primary School Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Vikrant Bhawan Jarhabhata Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Local Administration Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Director Public Educational Secretariat, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Ravish Verma, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 21/01/2020

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 i.e. application for amendment in the cause title of the petition.

2. On due consideration, the same is allowed. Necessary amendment shall be carried out during the course of the day.

3. The limited prayer which the petitioners have sought in this writ petition is for

a direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner 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.

4. 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 petitioners.

5. 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. The petitioner shall file a fresh representation within a period of 3 weeks from today and if such representation is filed the same shall be decided. 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.

6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case so far as the entitlement of the petitioners are concerned. The Respondents shall be at liberty to take a decision independently. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Jyoti Judge