Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42079 (CHH)

MOHAN DEV YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/10255/2025 · 2025-09-01

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10255 of 2025 1 - Mohan Dev Yadav S/o Mant Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Chhatauna, Block Takhatpur, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Smt. Neelam Shrivas W/o Rathram Shrivas Aged About 40 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Chhatauna, Block Takhatpur, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Pushpa Sahu W/o Vijay Sahu Aged About 45 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Chhatauna, Block Takhatpur, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Neetu Mishra W/o Vinod Mishra Aged About 50 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Chhatauna, Block Takhatpur, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Smt. Shanti Suman Bara W/o Amit Praveen Bara Aged About 41 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. New Primary School Sirgitti, Block Bilha, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Joint Director, Bilaspur, Education Division Bilaspur C.G. 5 - District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.03 12:48:32 +0530 2 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 7 - Block Education Officer, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur C.G. 8 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur C.G. 9 - Block Education Officer, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur C.G. 10 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 02/09/2025 1. The claim of the petitioners in the present petition is with regard to grant of 1st and 2nd Kramonnati Vetanman. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that with regard to award of the 1st and 2nd Kramonnati Vetanman, some circular has been issued by the respondent/State. Apart from this, Division Bench of this Court in case of “Smt Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others” in WA No. 261 of 2023 has also considered the identical issue. The petitioners are also entitled for the 1st and 2nd Kramonnati Vetanman. He further submits that at present, this petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to respondents/ competent authority in light of order passed by this Court in WA No. 261 of 2023. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3 4. Be that as it may, looking to the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners, this petition, at this stage, is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make representation raising all grounds as raised in the writ petition to respondents/competent authority annexing all relevant documents, and judgment of this Court passed in WA No. 261 of 2023. On such representation being made, it is expected that the respondents/competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, considering the circular(s) issued in this regard, in light of judgment of this Court in WA No. 261 of 2023 within further period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, and it is for respondents/competent authority to consider the claim of petitioners on its own merits. 6. With this observation, the present writ petition stand disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika