^•fc SINGIE BENCH (>R. ,.....~..^-g;-^@^ Srtedbvshri:l:5^tfc , ,„( IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISiSARH AT BILA5PUR WRIT PETITION^NO. 4^C3 OF20Q6. PETITIONER ; / Sushit Chandra Upadhaya, son of Shri A.L. Upadhaya, cged about 50 years, working as Sub Engineer (Civil), Water ftesources Department. resident of New Irrigation Colony, Tilda, District Raipur. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Oepartment of ('Water Resources, &.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water ftesources Department, Raipur. 3. The Executiys Engineer, Mahanadi Reservoir Project, Oistrict Division No.3, Titda, Raipur (C.6.) WRIT PETITION UN&ER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS XI-HC-78 sn^TwfeNi (raTsn^Tgiifhi qTtf<»n Sh*1icb j^ -!<l«lcl-i<,SrftTm?, Rfcll'Hy __ 10.^'^.6 03. '?i) 200^ w^\ y^* (^qt^si^) ?Tcn'STCtrf?(T3n^T qiTilfeift-T WR[f ff fe^ tfSTtCT: ^srf^Tsn^T 30-8-2006 Miss Sharmila Singhai, coun^el for the petitioner. r. Satish Supta, Oeputy 6^vt. Advocate for the State/respohdents, on advancecopy. Heard botti the counsel. Main grievance of the pe1|itioner raised in this iwrit petition under Articles 226 <& 227 of the Constitt(tion of India is that as per the Sovemment order Annexure P-2, the petitioner^ the reason that he underwent the slterilization operation. The case of the petitioner j is entitled for twio advance increments for ^ that in the year 1995 when the petitioner under-went the sterifizationt^et'ati^n, he was gronted two odvance increments. However, when in the yeor 1999, t|ie petitioner's pay scale was revised as per the Revision Poy Rules, 1998, th^ agoinst which the petitioner made said two increments have been stoppaJ severat representations and the last such representation is Annexure P-6 d<|rted 22-4-2006. The Executive Engineer (respondent No.3) hos forworded t(ie case of the petitioner for grant of two advance jncrements to the Ergineei|^in-Chief respondent No.2 md respondent No.2 is sittina over the case and hd is not decldinq the case of the petitioner regordir^ advance increments. Learned counsef for the pet^tioner submits that, in the circumstances, respondent No.2 be directed to decjde the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, to which le^rned counsel cppearin9 for the Stote/ respondents has no objection. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 sn^r^rR-fi'* traTSIT^Tstiiiicb L-, 5oma ^ 3^'^iraRpr, »Tnu'i6,(Sifiiuy $2l *1I*1<^I ShtRcK t^-..C<).-.:^>..fc4.0zS/^^ „„ ^...^.......<....-.<T-ry. ^ Sn^TMacft (lic<^st<i,!iT) ^RITWflfgtTSTI^T Having heard leamed facts <md circumstonces of the representation (Annexure P-6) increments on account of the months from the date of receii With the direction aforei Consequently, I.A.I Parties are entitled codnsel for the parties ond hwin9 regord to the <tase, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the of the petitioner re9ardin9 two advance ^ter'ilizflttion operation, within a period of t»»o o copy of this order. ^aid, the petition stands disposed of. also stands disposed of. for c4rt'ified copy of this order. 'e pt|of No.857t?/2006 tiiitci'fl'i wrot' if te^t <Ri<:c;i< ^i-sffl^rsn^r P.T.O. :^'