c^ ,._ i IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTTS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0. L{ ^5'J, / 2011 Petitioner : htanki Dau Bhardwaj S/o Shri Rohit Ram Bhardwaj, Aaed about 40 years, )er Division Teacher at &ovt. Schooi, Kalmidih, Block - Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir Champo-(C.£.) Versus Respondents 1. ^•".'.Y.. ^Q^-5'". •^.^••^w..-••^ ^..--^••^""^'" ^y';^^ State of Chhattisgarh,Through - The Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. (C.6.) District Education Officer, r^ 2." 3. Joint Ciirector, /^'^ .li' •' ?• Tt ^-^-s.feii? l ^ t ® i s-s. &s^»yi ^ 1 i. f\- v-??^^. (C.6.) Block Education Jaijaipur, Distt. Officer, B! WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION .iCS"^ f^fsk. ""%, •»!C ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petjtion (S} No. 4953 of 2011 PETmONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Nanki Dau Bhardwaj State of Chhattisgarh and others < Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitloner. Shri Y. S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. -<- WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICI.E 226 OFTHE CONSTn-UTION OF ZNDIA ORDER (27.08.2011) The petitioner who was appotnted on the post of Asslstant Teacher vide order dated 29.06.1993 (Annexure P/2) is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance Increments in his satary even though he dld his B.T.I. at his own cost beforejoining the service in the year 1992. 2. Counsel for the petltioner submits that the petitioner is entitied for two advance increments as he had obtalned B.T.I. Examination certlflcate in accordance with the provislens of Circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-4) and in view of the Judgments of Hon'bte Supreme Court in ^he matter of State of M.P. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported tn 3.996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Munictpat Corporatlon, Durg and another reported In 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG). 3." Learned State counsel does not dlspute the above factual posltion. 4. In the facts and drcumstances of the case, the present petltlon is disposed of with a directton to the petitioner to flle proper representatlon before the concerned authority wlthln thrae weeks from today and in the eventuailty of raaklng any such ian •,g ^ •^y ^y^y^"^' .-•2.- representation the same woutd be declded by the said authority after conslderlng the entire facts of the case wlthin a period of three months thereafter. -L^ 5. It is made ctear that this court has not expressed any oplnion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to dedde the representation strictiy in accordance wlth law. Pritinker Diwaker ^ Judge vf