Cp‘ g} W707” #EEmgéaE EEE~§€E IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.31? £92010 SB PETITIONER ff Smt. Kamaksha Habil W/o Shri. A.P. Habil, aged about 57 years, Working as Assistant Teacher E.B.A. Mission Middle School, Jagdalpur, District—Bastar VERSUS w 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Scfgml Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, District-Raipur (CG) fHirector, Director of Public Instruction, Pensan Bada, District-Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS 3. District Education Officer Jagdalpur , District-Bastar (CG) TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRFPTIONQ DEEMED FIT-‘ l. Particulars ofthe Petitioner~ As memioned in the cause title. maas h wcgaas ~ $§II v. ~. kw j mam WWW S.B: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR, 9 TENKER DEWAKER G8-1a-29‘w: Shri Azad Siddiqui, counsei for the petitianer. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, .L. for the State. Grievance of the petitioner is that though she ts entitled for two advance increments but the ame has not been passed on to her for no reasons. He submits hat number of identicat matters have been decided by this Court Where the petitioners have been permitted to file a representation“ copy of ene such order has been fiied by the petitioner as Annexur P-6. Counsei for the petitioner mits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A ha Saxena Vs. state of NLP. & ethersa 2W9 (til) MPJR (SC) 59 nd orders passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant Ku ’ar Bhardwa‘ Vs. Muntci or oration Dur & Anothr 2 06 2 MPJR-CJ 96 and in the case at Satii Kant Singh Vs. ate of Chhattisgarh & others, WP. {S} No.6257/2008, wherein enefit of two advance increments has been granted on the basis t at B.Ed. degree was obtained, is atso applicabie to the case of the petitioner, as the circuiars sought to extend benefit to those who ha obtained B.Ed/BTI Training, Iike the petitioner. He further submis that he may be permitted te withdraw this petition with iiberty o make representation before the respondent No. 3 for deciding the same in accordance with law‘ at C t b XI-HC—78 W W, m, W£§ No‘ W 5’8é5 /0 m m (WEI) MWW ammm mmm Wwm%‘%€tm *Wm On the other hand,‘counsel for the State submits that he has no objection if the petitioner m mm m zoo akes a representation and the same is decided in accordance with law. in View of above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to tiie repre ntation before the respondent No. 3 and in turn the responden representation so filed, in acco t No. 3 is expected to decide the rqiance with law. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge