@ ® gmgm Qgncw IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(syNo. 9%! 0F2011. PETITIONER Bahur Ram Banj are, /.. RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. ”WCommissioner, Schedule Caste and Schedule TribgxWelfare Department, Pt. Ravishankar shukla Premises Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) .yr’ 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:- gy ll M v S/o. Shri G. Banjare, aged PYI‘ Cl/aQ/L about 49 ." n/1 1 years, Leegafe'i, Govt. Higher School Kotagari Daundi, pa‘ &@ District Durg (C.G.) Q w a t V E R S U S @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.§S).No. 7561/201 1 Shn' Somkant V6rma, counsel for tha petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridha1‘, PL. for the State. WRIT PE’HTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (13.12.2011) The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department in the year 1978 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salaly though he has done B.Ed. from Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur at his own cost in the year 1986 after seeking permission from the Depaitment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of the teachers who were appointed by the School Education Department, the benefit has already been extended pursuant to the circular issued by the Government and also pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of MP. 8a Another Vs. Badrinarayan Achatya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwqi vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (I9 MPJR 96 (CG). State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the resp. No.2 and his case would be considered by the resp. No.2 in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court and also considering the fact that the petitioner who is the employee of the Tribal Welfare Department is also entitled for the same benefit or not. PETITIGNER Bahur Ram Banjare versus RESPONDENTS Stats of Chhattisgarh 8c. Others Counsel for the petitioner agrees to the proposition given by the Government Advocate. In View of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representah‘on before the resp. No.2 appiising the said authority about the factual and legal position and in the eventuality of iih‘ng of any such representation, the resp. No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably Within a period of four months from the date of receipt of filing of such representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioneri accordance with law. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge