BEil ^lr^z ^ S.B. (Service Matterl INTHEHIGHCOURTQF<GHHATTtSGARHATBILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl WRFTPETITIQNfSlNO. <\?)"'/2011; Resoondents FEHTRONERt [ ^ Smt.Jeevaa'^^^ j ^ ZaGharis 'Fpppo, a^d about 45 years, •workmgasA^:Teaieher,Govt. ^^,.^<"'^^}'':^l^.'.';':::'~^',:f^ :'.f\;'2^"''^^'^.^:::^'JPnB^^ ^.^rV'^?^!^ •(,;^^Kunktui,,Distr^.4^ •. %'<^^v^"': <..:/ .^^\^>-y'^:i'^:. ^''<'.'tj-l'-''."'-V'.^.**,';- ':.. ' ••'".;."•: .'. Chhattisgarh. versus / Z' 1. StateofChhattisgari'iyl'hrough Secretaty,E^lucationDepaTtment, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, iGtihattisgarh- ; 2. Distnct©duGafiOn^©iHce^ JasUpur, •; '•, ^Oihattisgarh. 'Y •:;!..,,,'':. •' 1/1 . ; 3. Bk>cK EdUcation 0£Bcer, Kunkuri, DistnctJashpur, Ghhattisgarh. 4. Joiht Du-ecitor Accounts Treasury and Pensibrt, Jashpur, ^Chhattisgarh.'. ••:;'1''•' ' ' . :. • ': - ;'' ! ! WRiTPETinONUNDERARnCLE2260FTHE coNsnrunoN OF INDIA J- € ^ ; mOH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BBLASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No.517 of2011 PETmONER : Smt Jeevan Kumari Toppo. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofCUhattisgarh & Otfaens. WRIT PE'HTION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTirUTION OF INDIA : .-•--•---•'•^^^^^^^^ SB: Hon'bleShriSatish K. Aenfliotri. J. Preseiit; SfariC.J.K.RaowithShriHarishKtaytiya, Advocatesfbrthe petitionfir. • :,; ' : .^ -—:.:!. •.::.... Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate fcir the , StateA^spondents. ORDER<QRAD (Passed on 18n day of Eebruaty, 2011) ^ 1. LeamedcounselappearingforlhepetitioneFsubiBitsthattheissue of grant oftwo amual increments to the teaehers oa aceouHt of obtaining B.Ed/D.Ed/B.T.I. qualification on thejr o'wn cqst, before entry into service, came up fbr consideraticn befwel.he Sup^me Court.in Asha Saxena v. State afM.P.&Orsl.©espj^speev!ic directions ofthe Supreme Court, the District Education ©fBeer, Jashpur has rejected the representation ofthe petitioner vide oider dated 24.05.2010 (Annexure P/l) on the ground that the petitioner was not entitledto two aaBiual merements as she hadobtained B.Ed qualification before entey into service. Thus, the impugned arda- dated 24.05.2010 is bad and vitiated. Eurther, this amounts to non- compliance ofthe mandate issued by the Supre(ne-Co:urt;in4s& Scucew/. 2009 yg) MpjR (SC) 59 2 \j-o Sfari Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for tile State/reqiaidents submits that the petitioner is entitled to two annual increments in view ofthe orderpassed bythe Supreme CourtinAsAa Sfloeena . In view of the above suhmission, particularly when tha-e is a specific mandate of the Suiweme Court and tfae Block Educatioa QfBcer, Duldula, District Jashpur has declmed to grant reliefto thft petitioner, the order dated 24.05.2010 (Aimexure P/l) isquashed. The petitioner is entitled to two aimual mcrem^ (»aWQuut of passing B.Ed examination before entry into service. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 5000/- payable to the petitioner, wMch may be recovered from the officer concemed whohas ignoredthejudipial mandate. ^ Safish K. Agnihotri Judge Anrit