Vi' ..-•^ ^ ^-;:. ^<.. V^^IS -•••l". -^.-•^ •""" ....<^> ,....g<;^oc" s-g. l5) /w -WL^ r&) \0 l^'c!> ^'^-r AMENDED PETITION BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION ( S) N0. 3824 OF 2008 PETITIONERS .-s^'^5\ '-:^n /^- J: -•«" fk 'fS. ^?' ^' .Eyt Shankar Lal "'Jaisawal S/o Purshottam Jaisawal, aged about 41 years, R/o Prim.ary School Mudagaon, block- Tamnar, Tah. Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). Keshav Prasad Chaudhary S/o Salikram. Chaudhary, aged about 46 years, R/o at post Jarekela, Tamnar, Tah. Tamnar, District RaigaTh(C.G.). Pradip Kumar Behra S/o Duryodhan Lal Behra, aged about 47 years, R/o at post village Jarekela, Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). Madhav Prasad Chaudhary S/o Salikram Chaudhary, aged about 42 years, R/o at post Jarekela, Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). Smt. Kanaklata Bohidar w/o late Jhhadeshwar Bohidar, aged about 50 years, R/o at post Tamnar, Tahsil TEimnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). Surya Kumar Panda s/o Shasht Bhushan Panda, aged about 48 ^^ y ^' ^..^y^t.;.^ <3) ^ years, R/o B.E.O. Office, Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). 7. Ashok Kumar Sahu s/o Purshottam Sahu, aged about 43 years, R/o at post Kasdol, Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.)" 8. Basant Sahu s/o Shiv Prasad Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o at post village Kasdol, Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). 9. Dulichand Patel s/o Ramdayal Patel, aged about 41 years, R/o Primary School- Saraitola, Block & Tahsil- Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). 10. Pardeshi Lal Behra, S/o Sahdev Behra, aged about 46 years, R/o village - Gaurmudi, post Saraipali, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). 11. Dhaneshwar Rrasad Son s/o Basudev Son, aged about 46 years, R/o Primary School - Tharakpur, post Saraipali, Tahsil - Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). 12. Bhuvneshwar Singh Sidar s/o Ratan Singh Sidar, aged about 46 years R/o Primary School- Bhaisgadi, Block 8s, Tahsil Tamnar, Dista-ict Raigarh (C.G.). i'9VSsSa- .^^^^ ^.;^':'^^ fTilt T'":l i:ii; r &) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State qf Chhattisgarh through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.).^ 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.). 3. District Education Officer, Education Department, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.). 4. Block Education Officer, Tamnar, District- Raigarh (C.G.I. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONQFINDIA HI6H COURT OP CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 3824^2008 Petitioners Shankar Lal Jaisawal & otfiers Versus Respondents State of CIihattisgarh aad others (Writ Petition underArdcle 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agafliotri J.) Shri S. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for ftie State/respondents. ORDERIOral) (Passed on fhis 3rd day ofjDeceinber, 2009) Heard. Learued coiuisel appearfng for the petitioners subinits ftiat fhe issue involved hereia this petition is asto whether the petitioneis, who have obtaiued B.Ed./D.Ed./B.T.I. certificate at their owa cost, are entitled to graut oftwo advaace increments fiom. fhe date fhey obtaiaed Uie certificate. He further submits fhat this issue has been considered aad decided by fhis Court ia Yashwant Kumar BhardwaJ Vs. Munlcipal Corporation, Durg & auother1 and Gopesh Kumar Verma Vs. TIie State Govt. of Chhattis^rh and another2. Learaed couasel next subnuts that the School Education Department, State of Chliattisgarh, .has issued the order dated 6.2.2007 (Amuexure. P/2) that all fhe Teachera who were appointed tiU 16.6.1993 and obtamed B.Ed./B.T.I. certificate on their own expeuses are entiUed to two iacreinents. 1 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 2W.P.(S) No. 4139 of 2005 3. 4. 5. 6. Thalcur Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners may be peimitted to make a representation which inay be considered aad decided by fhe Goncemed authority in fhe light ofthe decision offhis Coiut ia Ysshwaat Kumar BhardwaJ (sypr^ aad Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), as weU as in the Mght of fhe order dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure P/2). Leamed coimsel appearing for the respondents/State has no objection. Accordiagty, the petitioners are graated liberty to niake separate representations to fhe conceraed aufhority. It te expected that the reprcsentations inay be considered and decided ia accordance with law withm a reasonable period. In view of the above, the pedtion stands disposed of. No order asto costs. ,—-—- SatishK.Agnih"trl Judge _UI