v Smyia i’ggmig K @ C?/a@9/\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 53> 03 0f 2006 PETITIONER Sheshnath Pandey ,aged about w“ 59 years S/o Late Shri Ambika , Pandey , Head Master District éé $‘5Insatute of Education and Training ‘ 5“ " resident (DIET) , Jagdalpur of 1 18/ 1 Vidhya District— Vihar, Bastar, Jagdalpur District Bastar. (CG). VERSUS Q“RESPONDENTS :1.The State of Chhattisgarh,/ through the Secretary , Tribal Welfare Department , Mantralay , D.K.s. Bhawan, Rajpur (CG). Q‘L 2. Commissioner , Tribal Development/v 00 to 9/ M$3? O Q°$ Raipor Department (CG). , University Campus ‘ 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal $ Development, Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG). 4. Joint Director, Treasury andvhw Account , Bastar Division , V — :Jagdmmmé§fafm(}) 5. Assistant Director, Treasury g AccOunts and Pension , Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG). $ 6. Principal, District Institute off Education and Training (DIET) Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ . 1&H COURT OF CHHATTI5GARH AT BILA5PUR Sing!e aench: Hon’b!e Mr. Jusfice saiish K. Agniho‘iri W. P43) Na 5008 af 20Gé PeJrifioriar : Banmali La! Ruikwar Vergus Responderlfs The 5fa'fe of Chha‘Hisgar‘h & what‘s W. P.(s) No 5009 sf 2G0é Pe1'i?§on2r : Sheshna‘rh Pandey Versus RespendeMs : The STa‘fe of Chhaffisgarh & o‘Fngr‘s W. P.(s) No 5010 of 2006 PeTi‘?ioner : Madhusudcm Baghe! r‘V Versus Responden’rs The Smfe sf €hhaffisgorh & a’rhars And W. P.{s) Ne 5011 sf 2006 Pefifiomr : AshoQ Kumar Shar’mu Versus Respcnden’rs : The S‘m‘re of Chhaf’riSQarh & o’rher Shri Rakesh Amhony, Advocm'e for The pe‘ré‘fioners. Sm'r. Anju Ahuja, Dy. 60W. Advocafe fer The 5+a+e/respondenfs. GRDER (13Th Sepfember, 2006) The foilowihg order of The Cour? is passed by 5a?ish K. $gn§hafrL J, x s Babbu The faws im/olved in W. R (s) Na. 5008/2006, W. P. (s) No. 5009/2006, W. P. (§) No. 5010/2006, W. P. (s) Na. 5011/2006 fs iden'fica! and The quesfion of Iaw invalved 3s also 'i'ha same. Thus, fhese wri“: pefi‘rions are being dispo3ed of by common ardert The pe+ifioner§ are Upper Division Teacher. In ‘i’he course m‘ Their services, fhe pe‘tifianer-s have obfuined B. E& Examinai'ion Cerfificafe, whereby ’rhey were gran‘ied ‘i'wo advance incremenfs‘ The case of The pe’fii’ioners is 1hof Two advance incremems so gmn+ed have no’r been taken info considero'rion whiie fixing fhe soiariy of ‘i'he yo pefifionei‘s. 5min Anju Ahuja, ieorned Depu‘hj Goverhmeh‘f Advoco‘fe appearing for “the respondenfe/Sioi‘e submiis 'ihcd' in “the even? i? is found 111a? Mo advance ieeremenfs' paid 'fo fhe pefifioners have nof been considered for fixing ihe salary, +he some will be done. For 'ihe aforesaid reasons, fhe pefifioners are éirecieol '10 make oppropr‘ia‘fe represenm‘iion, if so advised, before fhe concerned au'fhor'iiies and 'l‘ne concerned aufhorifies ehall consider 'l’he some and pass 1'he appropriaie order, wi‘l‘nin o period of four weeks from fhe reeeipf of a copy of fhe repreeen'iafion‘ Wifh fhe ofoi‘emenfioned observofions, These wrif peflfions sfandsi disposed of. No order as fo cosfs. A copy of This order be placed on record of o'fher fhree connected mah‘ers. w Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l i l l l