Laxmi Prasad Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 27 Wps/5928/2018 ... on 11 September, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Chattisgarh High Court

Laxmi Prasad Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 27 Wps/5928/2018 ... on 11 September, 2018

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                                  1


                                                                                      NAFR
                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                              WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 5939 OF 2018
           Laxmi Prasad Baghel, S/o Phulsay Baghel, aged about 35 years, presently
           posted as Lecturer (Panchayat) at Government Higher Secondary School,
           Kulka, Block Raigarh, District Raigarh, R/o Village- Kulba, Tahsil Raigarh,
           District Raigarh (CG)                                           ... Petitioner
                                               versus
           1.     State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of
           Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang,
           Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
           2.     Commissioner-cum-Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Naya Raipur,
           District Raipur (CG)
           3.     Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
           Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (CG)
           4.     Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh (CG)
           5.     Block Education Officer, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh    ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11/09/2018

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The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, whereby the increment granted to the petitioner is being withdrawn on the ground that she has not passed B.Ed/D.Ed examination.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.

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 accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

                                                                        (P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/                                                                      Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court