\ VJ w“ ‘\ @ CfW// /‘\\ Single Bonch IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.) WRIT PETITION ( S.) NOHlm’OF 2011 PETITIONERS: ,1 1. Barsai Painkra S/ o. Shri —Sahdev Sai age about 46 years Occupatlon Serv1ce Occupatlon — Serv1ce Posted as Lecturer Hlgher Secondary School Pathalgaon, Tahsil— Pathalgaon, Distt.— Jashpur (C.G) Ir 2. Premlal Patel S/o. Shri—Jiwanlal Patel,aged about 47 years, Occupation ~ Service, Posted as Lecturer Higher Secondary School, Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, Distt.— Jashpur ( C.G.) VERSUS / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) FOX, The Assistant Commissioner , Tribal Welfare and Development Jashpur Distt.— Jashpur (C.G.) . 3 Block Education officer, Pathalgaon D1stt Jashpur (C G ) W 4 Treasury Officer Treasury Account & Pensmn Jashpur, Dist. Jashpur CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22 7 OF CONSTITUTION CF INDIA a M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) W.P(S). No. 4202 of 2011 Petitioners Barsai Painkara and another VERSUS Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Sanjay AgrawaL counsel for the petitioners. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, PL for the State. ORDER (01.08.2011) s The petitioners No.1 & 2 who were appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the Tribal Weifare Department on 30.06.1993 and 31.03.1987 respectively vide EXP-1 are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in their salary though they have done B.Ed from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma Open University, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur at their own cost in the year 2009 after seeking permission from the Department. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the case of 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 omer passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & another vs. Badn'narayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of ,Yashwant Kumar Bhardwai Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (ll) MPJR 96 (CG). 3 Learned State counsel submits that let the petitioners make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 and their case would be considered by the respondent No.2 in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court and also considering the fact that the petitioners who are the employees of the Tribal Welfare Department are also entitled for the same beneflt or not. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners agrees to the proposition given by the Government Advocate. 5. in view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.2 apprising the said authority about the factual and legal position and in the eventuality of filing of any such representation, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of filing of such representation. 6. 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 in accordance with law after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Priya Judge