c^ '^Z^— IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (S) N0. ^-1 U^ /2010 PETCTEONER \^>^^r^ ^;^9"' ^^ ^yy ^•' ^ ^•" <^-" ^ RESPONDENTS ^ Shiv Shekher Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri Kishori Singh . Upper bivision Teacher, (^overnment Boys Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, bistt. Koria (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 3. ^ State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^ Commissioner Tribal Welfare bepartment Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Baikunthpur District- Koria (C.G.) Joint birector, Treasury Account & Pension Koria bistt. Koria (C.G.) Block Education Officer Manendra9arh, Distt. Kon'a (.C.G.) Principal, <$overnment Boys Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, bistt. Koria (C.G.) 4. 5. 6. WRIT PETCTCON U/A 226/227 OFJ-HECONSTITUTCON OF INDIA r~" I-HC-22 37T^T^T f^ti^T^TI^T $t)^lich ^ffi^T '^Er'^iFn^R, ^frOT?. f^^i^y ^l^^l 5b*1icb 3Tli^T 'V^K _...U.€:.o^.^^a)41^ "fN^ar' ^TT^T ^RTTWTrf^r SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRE 07.12.2010 Shri Rahiil B.irtliarey, coun^' Shri Praveen. Das, Dy. G.A. Counsel appearmg for fhe| petitioner who was appointed 02(1 Teacher under fhe Tribal WeMare aggrieved by the action of fhe re^] advaace increinents ia his salary from Madhyamik Shiksha Maiid4 the year June 1999 after seekmg fhe departraent, Counsel for the parties controversy mvolved io this petiti|33 order ia fhe inatter of M^iaiicipal Corporatioa^ Diirg CG.96) & Ctopesh Kumar ^ CSahattisggurh & Anothear IW.P.|S)| Couusel appearmg for thej event, the petitioner niakes a rep|n considered aad decided ia accordj ofthe decisious ofthis C^)Urt ia Bharadaj Vs. Miaiiiicpal Corpora^i |II) MPJR CG.96) SB Gopesli Chhattisgarh & Another fRr.P.^) YasSailraa&t Uie Kiaxjaar period of four weeks from ti representation. <^IAlfd41yl 'RT^ff ^ f^t <PII^K ir3^R3?n^r NNKBR DIWAKER el for the petitioner. br fh.e State. petitioner subiaits th.at'the flie post of Lower Division Departmenton 15.10.1986 is ^pondents iu not addiag two even tibiough he did his D.Ed. 1, Bhopal at his own cost :m pemxissioii for th.e same froxn do . not dispute that the ti|3n is .squarely covered by fhe Kiamay Bharadaj Vs» <fe Aaother (2006 (II| MPJR terma Vs, The Govt. of |No. 4130/2003). State subinits fhat in. the ^p|resentation, the saine will be j^ace wifh law aad ia fhe Mght matter ofYasliwsmt kiimar a^ion, Durg & Another |2006 Verma Vs. The Grovt. of (^) No. 4130/2005? within a |ie date of receipt of fhe I -;^ -^f}.?^ /€^ <&• is^ '^ ^ XI-HC-22 %. ^ ^^ ^ww^ ^w\^ ^<ni^i< S^[ 'q^? , /l ..v2i?..^?.D....^:^'1 h ^ 200 WWtF^W^ "fq^ST' 3TI^T^T f^iw^n^T 5^<-ii^ Trfid 3^?r'^TT^R Trf?n cni^(<n<i1vi 1^TO^ff ^ 'f^st iF^^K iT^rf^FT^TT^T iD.g, no|fchi In view of fhe foregoio.g, and tlie same is accordiagly dispo It is 32iade clear tliat this < fchnig sun/rives ra this petition ^ed of Fburt has not expressed aay opiaion on nierits of the case ^iid the authority coBcemed would be at Uberty to decide t^ie representation strictly m accordance wifh law, considering ^ill fhe aspects ofthe case. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1 'ft^ 'Sfe^