Mf PETITIONER AT BILASPUR w.P.Is1No. {@O I2011, Bishram Bhagat, S/o Late Shri Tahalu Ram Bhagat, aged about 52 years, Working as Lecturer, T.w.D. High School Chongn'bhar, Block—Kansabel, Distt—Jashpur, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (,1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, - D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, ‘ Tribal Welfare I Department, Jashpur, Distt.— VJashpur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block ~ Kainsabel Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) , 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account 85 Pension Jashpur, Distt.—Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA {25/ Mom: 3mm ® IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1890 of 2011 WRIT PETITicN UNDER ARTICLE 226 CF THE CONSTITUTKDN OF !ND1A SB Hon ble Shn Satlsh K Aqmhotn J Present Shn Somkant Verma Advocate for the petmoner Shn P.K.Bhadun, Panel Lawver for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 08‘“ day of April, 201 1) Heard. x 1. The petitioner is working under the respondents. He was given two advance increments for undergoing famiiy planning operation as per fixation of salary rules. However, while fixing their salary as per recommendations of 5‘“ Pay Commission, the two advance increments already given to the petitioner has not been taken into consideration. 2. Shri Verma, further submits that the issue involved in this matter has been finally settled by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 7.12.2000 passed in Original Application No. 437/2000 in the matter of Smt. Smriti Chakravarry v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, and also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 16.03.2004, passed in WP. No. 6074/2003, in the matter of Dr. Anand Seraph in State of MP. He further submits that he is not pressing this petition at this stage, however, he prays for liberty to the petitioner to tile suitable representation before the respondent No.1 for ’redressal of above grievances, who may be further directed to decide the same Within the specified period in the light of the judgments in the matters of Smt Smriti Chakravarti (supra) and Dr. Anand Seraph (supra). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that if the petitioner tiles a fresh representation before the fgge* , «.23 PET:T!ONER : Bishram Bhagat VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others k) @ respondent N041 f0{ redressa! of above grievances within a period of one week from today alongwith copy of this order, the same sha" be considered and decided by the respondent No.1, in accordance with iaw, within a further period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. in View of the above submission of iearned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the respondent No.1 for redressal of the above grievances, within a period of one week from today alongwith copy of this order. On such representation being made, the respondent No.1 shall decide the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt ,/ —’ a, of the representation in accordance with law. ‘ Sdl4 Satish K. Agnihotn Judge