1^1<1' INTHE HON^LE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (Sl No.' " /2011 PETITIONER ^ ^. ..-:^^ •^'>e<'v Smt. Shakuntala Sarthi W/o Shri Shankar Lal Sarthi aged about 44 Years, Head Master, presently working at Govt. .^^"\"\...-""'"" Middle School Sargbundiya, Block- Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Korba -District Korba (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICJLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA _Tvl-i^>—^a±i±-<' - '^s^^- XI-HC—78 ^ST -A||<<|^^, '^'ffRpTs, 'f^frey :.£.'L^.)...N?..y.rtl an^i w K.-Cw ^an 3TT^T ^ltftq^ 3Tl^I'<PRi' (ljqfj»l<yi) T^ITW: ^cT SIT^I • VJKfWIS^' itff.; 11 Shri Ashwini Shiikla, ShriA.V.Stu-idhar, P.L. fofe- similar view iu. its order dated order dated 29..4.2010 passed whereia relyiag upon the judj Court in another Writ Appeal been issued for consideratioi^ advan.ee iacrements as per cii^ the State of Madhya Pradesh| pleaded in fhe petition. ^f'i1^^Tql''1 TWT?ff ^f f^^l' Tf^T^R ^siRn SIT^I isel for the petitioiier. fhe State. 1S increinents on account of she Counsel for fh.e petitione) entitled to benefit oftwo advaa^e .Ed. exs her own cost. It is subinitted present petition is no longer re^ finaUy decided by the Hon'ble| Asha Saxeaa Vs. State of Kt.P. 59. It is fiulher subinitted tltat this Court has also taken a issue involvecl ta integra and the same has been Court in fhe case of '. fe Ors. 16.2.2009 passed m W.P.(S) No. 6257/2008. Counscl forfhe pe^itioner further subinits fhat the m Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, ment of the Siipreme Court is. the case of Aslia Saxeaa (suprK and fhe order passed by this •f No. 87/2009, directions have of the case for grant of two ular dated 21.9.1974 issued bv after verification of the facts Counsel for fhe State su^imits that case ofthe petitioner wuuU <dt>u Lc considcrcd oia thA saiac liaea:—•• —— - XI-HC—78 'S^BI «4l'4tci'tj, 0xi1y'i<o, fs«niyy,< Hr*(^n a»wcd an^T •T^T (13?f3si^Ei) STI^T^lf^IR? i TT^TT sn^TgR^n^ ?^nw ^ft^ sn^r tftl-4fd41'1 HTO^ff 'if 'fe1^ < ^T< ^sffinaff^f En view of above, fhe pejtition is disposed of witti a direction to the petitioner to fipe appropriate before the coinpetent authorily ^sd in the eventualily aay such representation, fhe| 1 consider fhe same ia accordanbe with law aad would pass appropriate order. offiliiie shall It is niade clear that fhfe opiaion on naerits of the case woiild be at llberly to decide the 4 ICourt has not exptBssed auv and the autbority concemed iame in aecordance witfa iam-. Sd/- Pririnker Diwaker Judge