r (9 (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) No.é 2§’+/201 1. If, PETITIONER: Santram Karsh, son of Karthik Ram Karsh, aged about 58 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Girls High School, Kasdole, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus 1. w State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaly Education Department, / D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhatu‘sgarh. 2. District Education Ofiicer, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. / 3. Block Education Officer, Kasdole, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. / 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE H; , N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N w . . aM Mai l W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.(S).NO. 6257/20 1 1 PETITIONER Santram Karsh versus RESPONDENTS State of C.G. 8s Others Shri K.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. for the State] respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (20. 10.201 1) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department in the year 1975 is aggieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his B.’I‘.I. from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost in the year 1976 after seeking permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the parties do not dispute that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by the order in the matter of Yalhwant Kumar Bharadaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg & Another (2006 (II) MPJR CG.96) & Gopesh Kumar Verma Vs. The Govt. of Chhattlsgarh k Another (W.P.(s) No. 4130/2005). Counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners’ make a representation, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in the matter of Yashwant kumar Bharadaj (supra) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. ln View of the foregoing, nothing survives in this petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, considering all the aspects of the case. l Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge