Ram Kumar Naik vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 January, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ram Kumar Naik vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 January, 2018

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                           1

                                                                               NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 116 of 2018

        Ram Kumar Naik S/o Shri Minketan Naik, aged about 59 years, Lecturer,
        posted in Government Higher Secondary School, Tounsir, Block Baramkela,
        District Raigarh, Civil and Revenue District Raigarh (C.G.)

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department,
        Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     2. Director, School Education Department, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh.

     3. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

     4. Block Education Officer, Block Baramkela, Raigarh, District Raigarh,
        Chhattisgarh.

     5. Joint Director, Treasury And Pension Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District
        Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08/01/18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made representation before the respondent No. 2 to grant two advance annual increments, but the same has not been considered and decide till this date and, therefore, directions may be issued to the respondent No. 2 to decide the same expeditiously.

2. On the other hand, Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned 2 counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for two advance increments.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Be that as it may, the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court