1- SINGLE ^tSCtS IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(SINO. S^3^ /2010 PETITIONERS ^ ^4J ^t^. ^: ^>- / -S".N /^w //y ^ k ,/ 4^ .y <", 1.' Tibhu Ram Patel S/o. Nidhu Ram, nged about 55 years, U]3pcr Divisioii Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondaiy School Sapos, Block Dabhrn, District Jangir- ChHtnpa (C.G.) f 2. Moti Ram Patel, S/o. Hernnarayan Patel, aged about 50 years, Assistant Teaclicr, Govt:. Primary School Putidih, Dabhra, Distrlct Charnpa (C.G.) 3. Loclinn Kumar Patel S/o. Paitdi Ram Patel, tigecl about 57 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School Block Dabhr^i, Jangir-Champa r Block Jangir" Sa|)os, Dj.strict (C.G.) 4. Pokhruj Singh Maiti^ S/o. Dilchand, aged about 47 yenrs, Asst. Teacher, Govt. Micldlc School Kenabhantha, Block Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 'l- RESPONDENTS VERSUS : 1. Statc of Chhattisgarh Throiigh :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^" 2. Commissioner, Tribnl A. Welfarc Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3.' District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. - Districl Education Officer, Janjgir, IDistt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDlA, NWt'd (^IKft ^^ ^ww^, ^iw^, r^^w^ ,.^£.(llvu?..:.3%.53..).^ W^ 200 ^TI^T 1(T?W (^qf^<s|<^) 3?1^f ^FT ^J^ ^T3!?1^T 9?RW ^ 'y^Wt ^rf^cT 3T^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan S 26-07-2010 Shri Ajay Kumar Barik, counsel Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawjf advance copy. Heard on admission. Submission of learned counset the government circular dated 29-01- entitled to two advance incrementsl planning operation. It is further ^i Admjnistrative Tribunal had decided tht also passed an order in a similar cas^ 2009. (Annexure P-4) 1 find that the present petitionet' justice from the respondent application/representation. In this view ofthe matter, it wou|^ to make representation seeking demat In case, representations are preferr^d consider and decide the same in emphasize, in case, grievance ofthe the petitioners shall be at liberty to tak|£ be available to them under the law. In view of foregoing, the petition| chl<<I<n<fll "RW^f ^ fe^ <R»l^l< ^3TfOT3?T^T hrivastava, J. or the petitioners. fer for the State/respondents on For the petitioners is that in view of |1979, each of the petitioners are as they had undergone family lubmitted that earlier the State ^ issue, and later on, this Court has ^ (W.P.(s)No 7 of 2009) on 06-01- t% have not raised any demand of authorities by making any |d be proper to allow the petitioners |id of justice from the respondents. the competent aufhority shall abcordanoe with law. Needless to p^titioners still remains unredressed, |e recourse to such remedy as may is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^^rfl-T ^^ ^n^,. < f:^';<Pri<T -•'-FS/147~~2.'20! O -1,00,000,