$i£§k§ §E§€§§ §i €PL‘ITL' 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) NOW 2%9F OF 201Q {a PETITIONER Smt. Vimla Sing now Vimia Soni, W/O'Tribunvan Soni, aged about 43 years, at present posted as Upper' Division Teacher, Government Middie School, Dongariya, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS - RESPONDENTS State‘of Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director Public Instructions, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C‘G.) Block Education Officer, Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ . Wm WW. ..xW;:.E..:C,b.Q.W£i%§6l&-w ma mmmm WW1§WW $WW Qt 3.3.: HON’BLE JUsTICE MR. PRITIN KER DIWAKER 13-12-2010: Shri P,P.Sahu, counsel for the ‘ Shri Praveen DaS, Dy. GA. fer ‘ Counsel appearing for the petitioner who was appointed on the the School Education Department or action of the respondents in not adc her salary even though she did l Secondary Education at her own cost same from the department. Counsel for the parties do nc involved in this petition is squarely ct of Yashwant Kumar Bharadaj Vs. M Another [2006 (II) MPJR CG.96) 8s Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Another (W )etitioner. the State. petitioner submits that the aost of Assistant Teacher under I 20.4.1989 is aggrieved by the ing two advance increments in ier D.Ed. from the Board of after seeking permission for the >t dispute that the controversy )vered by the order in the matter unicipal Corporation, Burg & Gopesh Kumar Verma Vs. The .P.(S} No. 4130/2005). Counsel appearing for the Sta1 e submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, tue same will be considered and in the light of the decisions of kumar Bharadaj (supra) within f receipt of the representation. ng survives in this petition and decided in accordance with taw and this Court in the matter of Yashwant a period of four weeks from the date o In view of the foregoing, noth the same is accordingiy disposed of. It is made clear that this Coui on men'ts of the case v d the afithor to decide the representation stri considering all the aspects of the cas t has not expressed any opinion .ty concerned would be at liberty law, w 3t1y in accordance with I. ri"“"e 3“<‘%e We etc} .; Y