Chattisgarh High Court
Nasir Ahmad Iraki vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr on 14 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 5775 of 2014
Nasir Ahmad Iraki S/o Lt Shri Ali Ahmad, Aged About 43
Years, Posted As Assistant Clerk, State Education
Investigation And Training Council, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, Ps Shankar Nagar, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. The District Education Officer, Raipur, Dist Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5777 of 2014
Arun Kumar Singh S/o Durpad Singh Kachhwaha Aged About
42 Years R/o Diet Colony Pendra P.S. Pendra Distt.
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School. Education Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5778 of 2014
Prakash Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Tulsi Prasad Jaiswal
Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bisheshara, Post Kudri,
P.S. Pendra Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School. Education Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur
C.G., Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5779 of 2014
Dilip Kumar Rai S/o Late Shri J.P. Rai Aged About 44
Years R/o Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Gourela Pendraroad P.S. Gourela Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School. Education Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5780 of 2014
Neel Bahadur Kashipuri S/o Late Shri Shivnarayan
Kashipuri Aged About 42 Years R/o District Education
And Traning Institute Pendra P.S. Pendra Distt.
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School. Education Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5781 of 2014
Anand Kumar Shriwas S/o Late Shri Ramkishan Shriwas
Aged About 36 Years R/o Office Of District Traning
Institute Pendra P.S. Pendra Distt. Bilapsur,
Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School. Education Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5782 of 2014
Siddharth Kumar Gupta S/o Lt Shri Brijesh Kumar Gupta
Aged About 37 Years R/o District Education And
Training, Institute, Pendra, Ps Pendra, Distt
Bilaspur,Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. The District Education Officer, Raipur, Dist Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5783 of 2014
Shankar Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal Yadav Aged
About 46 Years R/o Village Behind Veterinary Hospital
Pendra Post Office And P.S. Pendra Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through The
Secretary, School. Education Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing)
14/07/2021
1. Since common question of fact and law is involved
in all these writ petitions, they have been heard
together and are being decided by this common
order.
2. The petitioners were appointed on the post of
'Assistant Grade - III' in the respondent
Department on compassionate ground. In their order
of appointment, it has clearly been incorporated
that the petitioners would have to pass the Hindi
Typing examination or attain the age of 40 years
which will make them entitled for annual increment
and their services will be regularized.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that some of
them have passed the Hindi Typing examination and
some have attained the age of 40 years and they
have been granted annual increment and other
benefits after completion of one year from the
date of passing the Hindi Typing examination,
which ought to have been granted to them from the
date of their appointment. The petitioners have
also made representations to the competent
authority in this regard but they have not been
considered and decided.
4. Respondents/State have filed their return and
stated that in accordance with the conditions
stipulated in the order of appointment, the
petitioners were to be given the benefit of annual
increment and other benefits prescribed therein
after one year from the date of passing the Hindi
Typing examination, which they have already been
given.
5. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioners, would submit that once the
petitioners have passed the Hindi Typing
examination in compliance of the conditions
incorporated in their order of appointment, they
will be entitled for grant of annual increment and
regular payscale from the date of their initial
appointment which dates back to 19941999 in all
the writ petitions. He would rely upon the
decision of the State Administrative Tribunal in
the matter of Malaydeen Verma and Others v. State
of M.P.1 and the decision rendered by this Court
in Smt. Kausalya Khusro v. State of Chhattisgarh
and Others2.
6. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Advocate
General for respondents/State, would submit that
in the matter of Kausalya Khusro (supra), the
point involved was somewhat different than the one
involved herein which is whether the petitioners
are entitled for benefit of annual increment after
passing the Hindi Typing examination from the date
of their initiation appointment. Therefore, that
decision is distinguishable from the facts of the
present case and the petitioners in this batch of
writ petitions are only entitled for annual
increment after lapse of one year from the date of
passing the Hindi Typing examination which has
already been given to them.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length.
8. Since petitioners have already made
representations claiming annual increment from the
date of their initial appointment as some of them
have already passed the Hindi Typing examination
1 1991 MPST 379
and some of them have attained the age of 40 years
and the question as to whether they are entitled
for annual increment from the date of appointment
or after one year from the date of passing the
examination has not been considered by the State
Government/competent authority, therefore, the
State Government/competent authority is directed
to consider the representations of the petitioners
in accordance with law/applicable rules,
regulations, circulars and judgments within 60
days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
Petitioners are at liberty to file relevant
applicable circulars/judgments along with the
representation to demonstrate their case which
will be considered by the State
Government/competent authority strictly in
accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid direction, these writ petitions
stand disposed of. No cost(s).
Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
