^l^RI ? ^FNC V?!{^^0 ?-^. ^ ^—'"^w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. PETITIONER ^' l^h OF 2011. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Son of Ramanuj Pandey, aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Rahangi, Block Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS &^N ^-~^\ • ^..R,. \ © | ••^^ ^^-/ ^(^y ^^ ^y J-/^^ ,"y. ^'" State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) District Education Officer, District Education Office District Bilaspur (C. G.) Block Education Officer, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:- ^" ^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT 8ILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwalcer) Writ Petition (S) No. 4128 of2011 PETmONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Arvlnd Kumar Pandey State of Chhatttsgm-h (ind others Shri Mirza Haflz Baig, counsel for the petltlonor. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the St^te. WRIT PCTmON UNDER ARTIGLB 226 01= THC CONSTrrUtION OF INDIA ORDER (04.08.2011) The petitioner who was appointed on the post of /tesistant Teacher vide order dated 08.05.1998 (Annexure P/l) is aggrlevcd by the ad:ion of the respondents in not addlng two advance Increments In h(s salary even though he did his B.T.I. at hls own cost before jolnlng the service In the year1992. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submlts that the petttioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained B.T.I, Examination certlficate in accordance with the provfslons of Circular dated 24.12.98 and tn vlew of the judgments of Hon'ble Stipreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. & Anotsher Vs. Badrtnarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Munlcipal Corporatlon, Durg and another reported in 2006 (II) MP3R 96 (C6). He further submits that the case of the petitioner ts also covered In vlew of the clrcular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-6) issued by the State Government. 3. Learned State counsel does not dispute th» abov®factual posltlon. 4. In the facts and drcumstances of the case, the present petitton Is dlsposed of with a dlrectlon to the petttloner to flle -'2-- proper representatlon before respondent No.2 wtthin three weeks from today and In the eventuality of making any such representatlon the same would be declded by the safcl aifthortty after conslderlng the entlre facts of the case wlthln a peried of three months thereafter. 5. It is made ctear that this court has not expressedany epliilon on the merlts of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to dedde the representation strictly in accor^ance wtth taw. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge