s IN THEJIIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. ^^^ OF 2011. PETITIONER : ^' Dhaneshwar Prasad Verma, S/o. Shri Khub Ram Verma, aged about 53 years, Lecturer, Govt. High School^ Bital, Tahsil Doundi, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^ . ^^•^/<1 fy'' ^<<A ..•••' y/-^ '-c/^xv' ^y ':1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C; G.) 2. Commissioner, Schedule Caste 8s Schedule Tribe Development Department, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Premises, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribe Development Department, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ^ ..^ ^^ 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5. Principal, Govt. High School Bital, Tahsil Doundi, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f' '., '/ HI^JCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR PSTITIONBR8 RBSPONDENT8 W.P.(S1.NO. 5774/2011 Dhaaeshwar Prasad Verma veisys State ofC.G. & Others Shri Soinkanfh Verma, counsel for Che pctitioncr. Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for fhe State. WRITPBTITIpNUNDBRARTICLE 226 OFTHE CQSSTirVTlOli OP IWDIA ORDER (27.09.2011) Cou-asel for the petitioner submits that fais casc is covered wifh the case of Asha Saxeaa Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2009 (IIIJMPJR (SC) 59 for grant of two advance iacrements as fhe petitioner has done B.Ed. He subnuts fhat he may be permitted to witbdraw fhis petition with Uberty to niake representation and iu tum tlirection inay be issued to fhe respoiidents to consider tfae case of tbe petitioaer iu accoriance with law. State counsel poiats out. fhat so far as fhe Tribal department is concemed tffl date no such cireular has been issued and thesefore the petitioner is not entitled for fhe benefit oftwo advauce increments as per the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra). Be fhat as it may, in fhe eventualily of tnakmg aay sucb representetipn by the petitioner, it is expected that fhe saine would be decided as expeditiousty as possible in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed aay opiaion on the laerits of the case and thc aufhority concemed woiild be at liberty to decide the representation strictly ui accordaace with Jaw. S&!- prUHikerD^aKar