•'W^.-^^V^, 7fr .sW' ''...,..^-'^"~" ^5F3^'"" p(E da»d IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.rsvNo. ^-. /2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENT ^o' Dev Nath Ram Yadav S/o Late Subendra Yadav, aged about 65 years, retired Upper Division Teacher, R/o Village and Post Nagarnar, TahsiI-Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS :(1) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Development Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) " The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal [ ^^ Department, Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar (4) The Principal, Govt. High School, Nagarnar,Post-Nagarnar, Distt.-Bastar ^ (C.G.) (5) The Divisional Joiut Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Bastar Division, Jagaldalpur Ditt.-Bastar (C.G.) (6) The District Treasury Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt.-Bastar (C.G.) Writ^etition under article 226 The constitution of India for appropriate writ/direction. mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETmON (S) No. 5777 of2007 PETITIONER : DevNathRamYadav. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StatenfChhattisgarh&.Others. WRIT PEITnON UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTrfUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Sbri Subhash Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Panel Lawysr for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 09til day ofFebruary, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the ease ofthe petitioner and provide benefit of FR 22-D of the Ctihattisgarh Fundamental Rules forgrant of increments, as provided under the rules and also to pay arrears from the date when it beeame due. 2. At the very outset, leamed coaisel appearing for the petitioner subinits that the identical matter has already been considered and deeided by this Court vide order dated 27-3-2008 in W.P. (S) No.4991 of 2006 (ferf Prakash Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh & ; Others) and the case of the petitioner is squarely eovered by the said decision. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the State does not dispute that the case ofthe petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by Ais Court in 7ed Prakash Pafdey (supra). Learned counsel fiuther submits that if the petitioner files fresh representation before the eoaeemed authorities for the reliefs, which he has claimed by way of this petition, the same shall be considered and decided in accordanee with law, sybject to verification offacts. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dispoged of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a freah representation before the respondent authorities raising all his grievances raised in this petition and on such representation being made, the respoadent authorities shall consider and deeide the same in aecordance with law and on its own merite, within a period ofthree months from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. ——-—; SatishK.Agmhotn Judge