L§iG§-§ COURT OF CHHATT3SGARH 1 BILASPUR W‘RIT PETITKBN (3} M1416 O3": 20G? Smt. F. Lakda Versw PETiTiONER RESPONEENTS State a? Chhattisgam & Di’hers {Writ Petiiéon Lmder Amcie 226 0f the Cansti‘iutio'n of mdia) S§rzg§e Bemh : Hon’bie Sm Sa’iish K. Agnihoiri; J. Praseni :— Shfi AN. ghaKta; counseé far *ihe peti‘Eianer. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panei Lawyer for i‘ne 8iate. OREER (ORAL) {Passed on this 9'“ day of Februaw, 201 0) 1. With the consent of ieamed caunsei appearing far me pariies, the peiition is heard ‘fmaaw. 2. By @Ehés petEéen: “the petitioner prays for qaaehing of We impugned endorsement dated 842%? (Annexure -> Pr’”&j made m me service back 0f the pet§iionar whemby and whereuna‘ef the incremenis granted “ta “me pemianef an account of acquisiiion cf BEd. quaiificatmn were cance§%ed and E1: was directed ‘co fecevef the amouni paid eariier fmm i‘ne peiiiionef. The reievant facts a? the case fer adjudicaiaen are that imtiaiiy eve peetioner was appointed 0n 734992 in the respondeni depaytment and thereafter the petmener eompie’zed B.Eci. degree on 14-84992 on her ewn expenees. Therefere, can me bes§s 0f me Sate Governmei’at cireukam itwo advance iaca’emen‘ts were greeted to the peii‘eoner wef. ’18—10-2Ga’33. ¢ 2 / However, aii of a $uddan withaut issuing Shaw cauSe noiice 0r affording an oppomnéw of hearing and withom fusiowing 5the due groce3$ of iaw by endon’semem‘i dated 8-‘§-20Q7 {Annexme — Pn} made m ihe service bmok a? ’ihe petitmner, the incremen‘i‘s graai‘ed its the petitiona on amoun‘i of acamsitim 0f BEd. quaéif§catien was cance§iw am it was directed i0 ream/er the amcum from the getiiianer. Thug; this pewian. Learned ccunse! appearmg m ihe pei§iicmgr submit$ that {ha ¥ssue mvcived in the prasem case is no lunger {gs intagfa as: the same has been cans‘adered a’fm‘ :‘jecideci by ihe Supreme Com in Asea Sexena v. Staée 9f MP. & Gm? as weii a5 this Ceurt m Yashwent Kama; gheradwej v. Meniciya§ Gerperaiiee, Gerg are anegfgeri’ and in ether catena a? decisiene. Learned couneei further eubmite ihai ihe meiani 9e%iticn §s equareiy covewd by the deeision as afmestated. ‘i’hus, the pet§iione¥ may be granted simim reiief. 5. a rave heard §eamed counsei appearing fer irrepariiee perused ‘Ehe pieadings and the documeme appended thereto. The circuiar daied 24-12-19g8 ée very c§ear t0 the errect mat ‘§§ the ‘reaehers who have eb‘iained B.Ed.; M.Ed.; ETA. etc. ‘trainrrrg certiricare are emitied re iwo advance irrcremenre. in. ihe present ease, the eetiiiener who bee obtained BEd. axaminaiian cedi‘f‘acaiE §n the yea 1992 is squareiy gwemed by the circular dated 24—124 9%. For the reasons men'kmned h$reinabove, the amer directing {ecovery cf ”the amaunt, which was paid on account or” acquisition of twc incremenis, is quashed arad iha peti%ioner wouid be eniii§ed ta thS paymem a? iwa advance inaemenis ‘s‘mm ache date it was granted eai'iier 0n amoum cf pcS$eS$iah sf BEd. degree. The rESpondenis are accordirEgiy direcieé ta dz: ihe needmi wii'mn a periad 6f three momhs fmm the date of maeipt of a sepy 0f this ordef‘ subi’ect i0 agerificatian 0f fac%s. m the resuit, the Wm peiit‘aen E3 aiiewed t0 the ex€ent ind§ca&ed above. No ardey asia castg. » Satish K. Agnihotri £ E Judge Gowri J- Sdl- f aw“? mm