IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S)No. ‘?/$1/>/ OF 2011. r/’ Narayan Das Sahu, / PETITIONER S/o. Shri Churamani Sahu, about 43 /’ Commissioner, Schedule Caste and Schedule Trib%Welfme Department, Pt. Ravishankar shukla Premises Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) xx Assistant Commissioner, TribetfWelfare Department, Durg, Distt. Durg, (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) / ‘\ w“? *.K,on‘ Govt. Girls Higher Secondary ,‘I:‘:"‘M ffbq i School Doundi, District Durg 3‘. W ....." (C.G.), o” V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : L/State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) WRI @ T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE @ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR §B : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.§S}.NO. 7565/201 1 Shri Somkant Vanna, coun sel for the petitioner. ShriAVShridhar, P.L. forthe State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (13.12.2011) The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the Tm'bal Weifare Deparunent in the ‘year 1993 is aggrieved by the aetion of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary though he has done B.Ed. from Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur at his own cost in the year 2003 after seeking permission from the Department. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of the teachers Who were appointed by the School Education. Department, the benefit has already been extended pursuant to the circular issued by the Government and also pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of MZP. as Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwqj vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (H) mm 96 (CG). State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the resp. No.2 and his case would be considered by the resp. No.2 in the light of the judgment ofthe Supreme Court and this Court and also consid ering the fact that the petitioner who is the employee of the Tribal Welfare Department is also entitled for the same benefit or not. PETITIONER Narayan Das Sahu versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8r, Othérs Counsel for the petitioner agrees to the proposition given by the Government Advocate. In View of the above, the petition is disposed of with a dilection to the petitioner to tile a fresh representation before the resp. No2 apprising the said authority about the factual and legal position and in the eventuality of tiling of any such representation, the resp. No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of filing of such representation. 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 of the petitioner in accordance with law. Sdl— Pritinker Diwaker Judge