^ •<r' •h IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONISl No.AOO''>/2011 PETITIONER .\\\ •-.\^ •e^y^ .•»•*' ^:. ^- M-'A3^-"' f.v-.-*" ^.y.>'"' .^"y'^y »»*'•'*' ^') RESPONDENTS Lakhan Lal Dahariya S/o Shri Badkuram Dahariya aged about 44 Years, Lecturer, presently wbrking at Govt. High School Ajgarbahar, Block- Korba, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS •l'. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Korba 3. District Korba (C.G.) Principal Govt. High School Ajgarbahar, Block- Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITIOILUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 v *<!*<rtTarHra» d^f '*ll^l(yl^, QTliy'Ko, fs)dl-LilJ,< .^£^1^:.^^ SfI^T •q'RT (ipfg5|^(I) sn^iw (<-<ieh ^sff 3TT^?T »H ^TOR ^feT 3TI^( • vxf\'ysf' >•£?•; 36.07.a011 Sbri Ashwini S'fariA.V.Shri i Shukla, idhar, P.L. for Counsel for the petitioner ehi*il<ri'4ii tfm^Tf ^f fe^t <r<if^i< ^aiRnaii^r for the petitioner. the State. 'submits that tlie petitioucr is entitled to benefit of two advaac^ increinents on account of he haviug passed B.Ed. examinatio4 before his appoiataient at his own cost. It is submitted fhat fh petition is no longer res integra issue involved in the present ^nd ffae sanie has beeu finally decided by the Hon^le Suprente Court da fhe case of Asha Saxena Vs. State ofM.P. & OrsJ It is fiu-ther subinitted ftts similar view in. its order dated Q 6257/2008. Counsel for the petif Qrder dated 29..4.2010 passed wherein relyiug upon the fhe case ofAsha Saxeaa (supraj Court in anofher Writ Appeal been issued for consideration advance increiuents as per the State of Madhya Pradesh, pleaded in the petition. judgnjient circiUar ta 2009 (III)MPJR (SCJ S9. [t this Court has also taken a 1.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. .lioner fdrfher submits that fhe Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, of ftie Supreaie Coiul ia aad the order passed by fhis |^o. 87/2009, directions Iiave |of the case for grant of two dated 21.9.1974 issued by iafter verification of the facts Counsel for the State sublnits fhat case of fhe petitioner would also be consKlered on the Ssame Unes. ^6 ^\. XI-HC—78 ^sr ^iAiiyt), ®ii1y4is,fs(<niyy,< 311^1 TI?R7 (lq[-t»l<;ll) Sffl^I ^T 1^Tiq? (TSTT 3TT^?T ShH .-»i: 'RgiwdfpT sn^i In view of above, the pe| directioa to the petitioner to before the coinpetent authority ^ any such representation, the| consider fhe same ia accordaaf appropriate order. It is madc clear that this opinion on inerits of the case would be at liberty to decide fhe ^ chl<<[(T1^'ll 'RTR^ff ^ fttZt <f^(^!< ^aiRnsii^r tition is disposed of wifh a appropriate representation nd in. fhe eventuaUly of filins competent autliority sfaall ;e wifh law aad would pass |Court taas not expressed any ^nd the authority concemcd [ame ui accordance with law, Sd/- Pritinker Judge .^