i ) RESPONDENTS IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRnLPETIT!0^(SLNo.;7T?.:7' /2010 S^li3^ PETITIONER ' L.N.Dubey S/o Shri J.P.Dubey aged about 50 years resident of Purana Sarkanda Shiv Ghat, Dubey Marg, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ^' 2. The Commissioner, Directorate Higher Education Government Science College Compus Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA ^..^ ^s^ ^^ ^•^^v ^^ Ci^l^s ^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} No. 707 of2010 PETITIONER : L.N.Dubey. VERSUS • RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18U1 day of March, 2010) Heard. The petitioner is working under the respondents. He was given frwo advance increments for undergoing family planning operation as per fixation of salary mles. However, while fixing their ^alary as per recpmmendations of 5 Pay Conunission, the two advance increments already given to the petition©xhas not been taken into consideration. Shri Sahu further submits that the issue involved in this matter has been finally settled by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Triburial, vide order dated 7.12.2000 passed in Original Application No. 437/2000 in the matter of Smt Smriti Chab-avarty v. The State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others, and also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 16.03.2004, passed in W.P. No. 6074/2003, in the matter oi Dr. AnandSaraph v. State ofM.P. He further submits that he is jiot pressing this petition at this stage, however, he prays for liberty to the petitioner to file suitable representation before the respondent No. . for redressal ofthe above-stated grievances, who may be further directed to decide the same within the specified period in the light ofthe judgments in the matters of Smt. Smriti Chakravarti (supra) and Dr. Anand Saraph (supra). ^-^ On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent No. 1 for redressal of above grievances within a period of one week from today alongwith copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent No. 1, in accordance with law, within a further period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In view ofthe above submission ofleamed counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the respondent No. 1 for redressal of the above grievances, within a period ofone week from today alongwith a copy of this order. On such representation being made, the respondent No. 1 shall decide the same within a period of8 weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation in accordance with law. Sd/- ^v litiotn