@ (D $§m§z§w Ewm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S)No. ?‘r5é5% OF 2011. / Rohit Kumar Deshmukh, PETITIONER RESPONDENTS S / o. Shri Dhur Singh Deshmukh, aged about 49 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Salhe, Block Doundi, District Durg (co) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) (We 2. Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe’LWelfare Department, Pt. Ravishankar shukla Premises Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) if 3. Assistant Commissioner, Triba‘}We1fare Department, Durg, Distt. Durg, (C.G.) y“ r 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Commissioner, U A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $3 : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gst.2\xo. 75671201 .1 Shn' Somkant Verma, counsel for the petiu'onsr. Shn‘ A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the Stats. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER i13.12.2011) 'I‘he petitioner who was appointed 'én the post of Assistant Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department in the year 1986 is aggrieved by the acticn of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salaxy though he has done B.T.I. from Madhyamik Shiksha Manda}, M.P. Bhopal at his own cost in the year 1990 after seeking permission from the Department. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of the teachers who were appointed by the School Education Department, the benefit has already been extended pursuant to the circular issued by the Government and also pursuant to the order passed. by the Apex Court in the case of State of MP. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwq vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 {ID MPJR 96 (CG). State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the resp. No.2 and his case would be considered by the resp. No.2 in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court and also considering the fact that the petitioner who is the employee of the Tribal Welfare Department is also entitied for the same benefit or not, ?ET1TIONER Rohit Kumar Deshmukh versus RESPONDEN'Ts State of Chhahisgarh 85 Others @ Counscl for the petitioner agrees to the proposifion given by the Govemmant Advocate. In vicw of thc above, thc petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the resp. No.2 apprisjng the said authority about the factual and legal position and in the eventuality of filing of any such representation, the resp. No.2 shall deoide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible pieferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of filing of such representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits 5f the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge u