Advocates:
['Sachin Nidhi', '', 'AMAR NATH RAI', 'HARIOM RAI', 'A G', 'Richa Shukla', 'Apurv Goyal']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 3466 of 2020

• Smt. Jagrani Kujur W/o Upendra Kujur, Aged About 37 Years

Working As Lecturer At Govt. Higher Secondary School,

Sendrimunda, Block Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.,

District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,

Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner- Cum- Director, Directorate Panchayat Department,

Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur

Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

4. Block Education Officer, Block Kunkuri, District Jashpur

Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

----Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate with

Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Deputy G.A.

For Respondent No.3

;

Ms. Richa Shukla, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

30/03/2022

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whereby the increment granted to the Petitioner is being withdrawn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

2

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 stands accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy)

Judge

Ved