SINGLE BEHW $ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^ 9^^- OF 2011. PETITIONER ^?; ^^ ^<£0>'" ^^y ^'..;..•-"' VI--A^ ^•%^ ^•'."h'4.^''' -•• ^•^sy^ c?^^>" Hargovind Sinha, - S/o. late Shri Vishram Sinha, aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Kirgoli, Block Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSU S A^" RESPONDENTS ^: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C. G.) 3. Block Education Officer, ^- Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C. G.) 4. Treasury Officer, ^ Treasury Account and Pension, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C. G.) .V / 5. Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar at Jagdalpur (C. G.) c WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ^ t*r 1UI Hi.GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELA8PUR SB : HOS'BLE MR. JUSTICE PKtTIMKBR DIWAKER vcrsus 1B- Hargovind SiTkha State ofC.G. & Otbers Sbri Soianath Venna, counsel for fhe petitiorier. Shii Yashwant Siagh TIiak-UT, Dy'. A.G. for t'&e State. OP IMDIA Couiisel for tlie peuuoiier siibmits that his case is covered wit.h tlie case of Aslia Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Ots. 3009 IHI1MPJR (SCj 59 for gr;3xit of two advance m.crem.eats as the petitioner has done BTI. He submits that he may be permitted 'to withdraw th.is petttion. with .'tiberti" to inake •representa'don aad in. twri directioQ i&ay be issiied to fbe respondents to consider t.h.e case of the petitioner in accordaace with law. : State couusel points out that so fai' as the Tribal departBient is concemed t31 date no sucli circillar has beea issued and tlierefore tlie petxtioner is not eQtitled for the benefit of two advasce incremeiits QS per the decisioa ofthe Suprenie Co-art iii Asha Saxena'(supra). Be tbat as it may, -in the eventualily of mald.ng auy s'uch representa.tion bv t&e petitioner, it is expected that the saine would bc decided as expeditiously as possfcle ia accoittaj's.ce with tov. It is made clear tha.t fliis court lia.s not expressed any opirdoa on fhe merits of tbe case and Uie aiitiioriry concenied would be at liberh' to decide tlie representation strictly in accoi'diaiice witli law. Sd/- ' Pritinker Diwaker ^ Judge }