^ •\ ® Slngto Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No:l "/2011 PETITIONER ..s^^ .......^§^> ,^:%$r- RESPONDENTS 1. 2.' ^ Chhedilal Sarthi S/o Shri Sukhdev Sarthi aged about 45 Years, Principal, presently working at Govt. High School Ajgarbahar, Block- Korba, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^ State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Korba District Korba (C.G.) -^Principal Govt. High School Ajgarbahar, Block- Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4. ^ Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^J-—^^IM.^» *»/<h/<<^- .Ix-r. V\£^'~ri^ -t-' -^,, -^ ^^^y XI-HC—7S \v\ %' 's^ "Mi-4iti'4, sstilyie, fs)diy^< — .!Ar£:..^..l^.3'r^AL_ ^nwn' sb*ii<*> - -^^^-^^ y sn^T iraq? ('ipf^p^q) sn^i w k-fi* I (raian^Tgiiriq; IWNUB !^ ^wiim ^ftg sn^r S.B.; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE <Mqfctin'1 'W1^Tf ^ f^St <F^ 5.t< ^sTfinsii^r Shri Ashwini Shiikla, couasij'l for the petitioner. Shri A.V.ShridIiar, P.L. for fbe State. Counsel for the petitioner s^ibauts that the petitioner is entitled to bene&t of two advaoce having passed B.Ed. examination own cost. It is subniitted fhat the lincreiaents on account of hc ^efore tus appointinent at his [issue involved in fhe present petition is no longer res integra sdfid fhe sajne has been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supremq Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. ^009 $ It is further submitted fhatl sutular view iu its order dated 6.' 6257/2008. Cozmsel for the petiti^ner order dated 29..4.2010 passed in| whereia relying upon fhe judgm^nt ftie ease ofAsha Saxena (supr^ Court in another Writ Appeal beca issued for consideration o) advance increments as per circul^r the State of Madbya Pcadcsh, ^fter pleaded in fhe petition. C-ourt in 'the case of Asha this Court has also taken a ^.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. furfher subinits tfaat fhe Writ Appeal ^?0. 124/2009, of fhe Suprenie Court ia ^nd the order passed by fhis fhe case for graat of two dated 21.9,1974 issiied by venfication of the facts Counsel for fhe State subndts tfaat case ofttie petitioner t would atso be considered on ftie spnie Unes. XI-HC—78 ^ST "41'41^'lj, ®Tll'H4l6,fqcll'H^ ^I^CTI WW^i sn^r ^T^V (ljcit-i«(<^T) sn^r w f<;-fi'* '(TSTT3n^T !d^f ^niwafei sn^i v In view of above, fhe p^tition is disposed of wifh direction to fhe petitioner to S^e appropriate representation before fhe coiapetent aufhorily ^nd in the eventiiaUty of fiting aay such representation, fhe[ consider fhe sajme in accordaolce wifli law and would pass appropriate oider. <=hl^f^Rh 'RW^ff ^f 1^rt ^-^K ^TsiRnsn^T It is inade clear that this opinion on inerits of the case would be at liberty to decide the |Court has not expressed aay land tbe aufhority concemed feame in acconlance witfa law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker -^