'r^ ^, r •^ ^4-" ^ ^i^^r^j (5 r^rs'%s'nt! ilitllE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH_ArBILASPUR WRIT PETCTION (5} NO.&P.^2^F 2011 PETmQNER VERSUS RESPONbENTS 1. ^-" n?-, ^% ^yx^ .^^•^ >-^p<-^01 ^^ ^ 3. '^. 'v.~,''!\ 5. ^c^ .y Phul Sai Dewangan S/o. Shri G.P. bewangan, aged about 40 years, Post of Head Master, working as Govt. Primory School Chindpara, Biock PaSi, bistt. Korba (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribai Weifare Department, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, TrEbal WelfGre Department, Raipur, bistt. Raipur (C.^.) Assistant ComFnJssioner, Tribai WeJfare bepartment, Korba, Distt. Korba (C&) Joint birector, Treasiry, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.] B!ock Education Offi'cer, Biock Kartala, Distt. Korba (C&) WRII£ETITIOhLUN R^RnCLE,226OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INhTA r ...!r^'\~ .^' .f Y ^^%<<$^ <^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR PETITIONERS RBSPONDBNTS W.P.(S)<NO. 6032/2011 Phul Sai Dewangan versus State of C.G. & Others Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (12.10.2011) Counsel for fhe petitioner submits tibiat his case is covercd with the case of Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2009 (IH)MPJR (SC) 59 for grant of two advance iacrements as fhe petitioner has done B.Ed. He submits fhat he may be permitted to wifhdraw ftus petition wifh Uberty to niake rcpresentation and in tiim direction may be issued to the respondents to coasider the case of fhe petitioner in accordance with law, State counsel poiats out fhat so far as the Trifoal department is concemed tiU date no such circular has been issued and fhereforc the petitioner is not entitied for fhe benefit of two advaace iacrements as per the decision offhe Supreine Court ia Asha Saxena (supra). Be that as it xnay, iii fhe eventuaUty of xiiakiag any such representation by the petitioner, it is expected fhat fhe same would be decided as expeditioiisly as possible ia accoidaxice wifh law, It is inade clear tiiat this court has not expressed aay opmion on the Dierits of fhe case and tbe aufhority concemed would be at Mberty to decide the representatioa strictly m accordance wifh law. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge