d“\c90/ a v @ PETITIONER IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s1No. LRHO 0F2o11. / Raj 'Kumar Dewangan, S/o. Shri D. SnDevyangan, aged about 47 years, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Chikhlakasa, District Durg (C.G.) ” VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Commissioner, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development Department Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Premises Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) / 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and PenSion, Durg, Distt. Durg (Ci G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:— / (J W f @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’ELE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER wags! no. 42401201 1 PETITIONERs Raj Kumar Dewangan Versus RESPONDENTS State of CG. 65 Others WRIT PETITLON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Somkant Vcrma, counsel for the petitioner. N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. oRAL ORDER ‘03.os.2o11) The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Upper Division Tsacher in the ’I‘Iibal Welfam Department in the year 1987 is aggn'eved by the action of the respond ents in not adding two advance iucxements in his salry though he has done B.Ed. from Pt. Ravi Shankar Shulda University, Raipur at his own cost in the year 1990 after seeking permission from the Departxnent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of the teachers who were appointed by the School Education Department, the benent 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 M.P. & Another Vs. Badrinarqan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of Yashwant Rumor Bhardwq vs. mnictpal Corporaaon, Durg and another reported in 2006 (m WJR 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 ’I‘n'bal Welfare Depaxtment is also entitled for the same benem or not. Counsel for the petitioner agrees to the proposition given by the Government Advocate. In View of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to Ee-a fresh representan‘on before the resp. No.2 apprising the said authon'ty about the factual and legal position and in the eventuality of filing of any such representation, the resp. No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a peliod of four months fmm the date of receipt of filing of such representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with lag/- .V/VV“