mgg; 3 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) Namé92010 SB PETITIONER Smt. Monika Harun W/o Shri. Asit Harun , aged about 53 years, Working as Assistant Teacher E.B.A. Mission Primary School, Jagdalpur, District—Bastar (CG) VERSUS / 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through RESPONDENTS , Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, $3 Department Of Scool Education, %\w BXQE..... 0/ g’ District—Raipur (CG) / / 2. Director, Director of Public Instruction, Pensan Bada, District-Raipur (CG) W, 3. District Education Officer Jagdalpur District-Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DEEMED FIT- 1. Particulars ofthe Petitioner- As mentioned in the cause title. )I &:§~»¥—tm~« a $’?H;:—:w ii‘g—Trsa—V k WW O .9.®N°.8£0 IO 200 WWW mmm WWW WW wW %;3iman%¥1 SB: HON’BLE JUST!CE MR. P Q8-10-2010: Shri Azad Siddiqui, counS£ Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, r is that though he is entitled for two advance increments but th same has not been passed on to him for no reasons. He submit that number of identicai matters have been decided by this Cou where the petitioners have been permitted to hie a representatio . copy of one such order has been fiied by the petitioner as Annexu e P—6. Counsei for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of sha Saxena Vs. $tate of MP. & others, 29% (iii) MPJR {SC} 5 and orders passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant K mar Bhardwa' Vs. ration Dur & Anothr 2906 2 MPJR-CJ 96 and in the case of Satil Kant singh Vs. $tate of Chhattisgarh & others, WP. (S) No.825712att8, where RITINKER EIWAKER m W (Wu) zi for the petitioner. P.L. for the State. Grievance of the petition benefit of two advance increments has been granted on the basis hat B.Ed. degree was obtained, is also appiioabie to the case of th petitioner, as the circuiars sought to extend benefit to those who h d obtained B.Ed/BTI Training, iike the petitioner. He further sub its that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with iibert to make representation before the respondent No. 3 for deciding th same in accordance with law. I o " XI-HC—78 mwfwah‘ ammm for the Staie submits that he has On the other hand, counsel no objection if the peti’i§oner mak as a representation and the same is decided in accordance with law. m View of above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with iiberty to file representation before the respondent No. 3 and in turn the respondent i representation so filed, in accord: to. 3 is expected to decide the ince l with law. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge Wm W200 mwmgiaaiu) mmm “2r wwwifgq’rm *Wm