Raj Kumar Dinkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 32 Cont/72/2019 ... on 20 February, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 20]

Chattisgarh High Court

Raj Kumar Dinkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 32 Cont/72/2019 ... on 20 February, 2019

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                                 1


                                                                                  NAFR
                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                        WPS No. 1130 of 2019
             Raj Kumar Dinkar S/o Shri Shankar Lal Dinkar Aged About 44 Years
             Working As Lecturer (Panchayat) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary
             School Chapora, Block Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District :
             Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                               Versus

        1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat
             Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
             District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

        2. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
             Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Sameer Behar, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20/02/2019

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, whereby the increment granted to the Petitioner is being withdrawn on the ground that he has not passed B.Ed/D. Ed examination.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the issue with regard to withdrawal/non-grant of increment on the ground of having not passed B.Ed/D.Ed examination was examined by this Court in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No.4271 of 2017 and batch of petitions, vide order dated 03.11.2017) and various directions have been issued for affording proper opportunity of hearing and then decide the matter. 2

3. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner's claim would be examined after affording opportunity of hearing in terms of order dated 03.11.2017 passed in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra).

4. Considering the aforesaid submission, this petition is finally disposed of, with a direction to the Respondents for examination of Petitioner's claim in terms of order passed by this Court in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra) and take appropriate decision thereon.

5. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed off.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court