NEELAM DUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been iled by the petitioner for grant of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed. Certiicate at her own expenses prior to joining in service on the post of Assistant Teacher as also to quash the order dtd. 1/12/2016 (Annexure P/8), whereby, the State has denied the said beneit to the persons who were appointed after 16/6/1993.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1994, the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department. In the year 2009, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDT and in the year 2014, she was further promoted to the post of Lecturer. In May 2015, the services of the petitioner along with other Teachers of the Tribal Welfare Department was absorbed in the School Education Department. On 28/10/2014 (Annexure P/3), the State Government passed the order regarding grant of two advance increments from the date of joining to those Teachers who had obtained B.Ed./BTI Certiicate at their own expenses prior to joining their service. The petitioner obtained B.Ed. Certiicate (Annexure P/1) in the year 1991-1992 at her own expenses. Respondents 5 and 6, who are the similarly placed employees, were granted two advance increments vide order dtd. 22/2/2016 (Annexure P/4). Though the petitioner made several representations, but the claim (representation) of the petitioner was dismissed in pursuance of the Order/Circular dtd. 1/12/2016 (Annexure P/8) passed by the School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh, by the District Education Oicer, District Korea by the order dtd. 13/4/2017 (Annexure P/7). Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the State has issued a Circular/Order in this regard on 28/10/2014 (Annexure P/3). In the said Circular, no cut of date was mentioned and it has been clearly stated therein that the Teachers and the Lecturers, who had obtained B.Ed./BTI prior to their appointment at their own expenses, are entitled to two advance increments. They would submit that since similarly situated employees i.e. respondents 5 and 6 were granted such beneit, the State has discriminated in the case of the petitioner. They would further submit that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order by wrongly interpreting the order dtd. 4/4/2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of Writ Appeals i.e. WA No.105/2014 and other connected Appeals. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and grant two advance increments in favour of the petitioner.