Stngte Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No;^BO^/2011 PETITIONER ^ts^ \.^-"^w ^8^ &^-- \\ '>' '^^~ RESPONDENTS ^l^^''& Gopal Prasad Banjare S/o Shri B. R. Banjare aged about 44 Years, Principal, presently working at Govt. Higher Secondary School Lafa, Block- Pali, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Korba District Korba (C.G.) Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Lafa, Block- Pali, District Korba 4T Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '•9.yy.S *;a;».^?as!;s; ^ XI-HC—78 WHCIT ^»*irai ^°T •*ii'4id'i<, yfliyis, fsicniyy ^^.Uf.^..!J>l.^.Li.^]... sn^?!'1!^? (' p) sn^v ^T h-fi* "(T8IT 2rTT^?T sh^W TCIIW wfsti sn^i 26,07,3011 Shri Ashwini Shukla, couns^ Sbri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for fhe Gouasel for fhe petitioner ^ubniits that the pefcitioner entitled to benefit of two advaace! l=M^Ec'1^"ll HIH<yll "^f f^^l •t.f^ $l< ^siRrasiR^i 1 for the petitioner. own cost. It is submitted that fhe 13 liacrecaents on accouiit of he |>efore his appoiattnent at Ms |issue iavolved in the present petition is no longer res integra a^td fhe sarne has been finaUy decided by the Honl3le Supreine) Saxena Vs. State ofM.P. &, Ors. ?009 (IIIJMPJR (SC) 59 petiti{)ner It is farther subiuitted fhatl simflar view in its order dated 6.; 6257/2008. Counsel for fhe order dated 29..4.2010 passed u^ wherein iclyiag upon the judgin^ the case of Asha Saxeaa (supra) Court in anotfaer Writ Appeal N| been issued for consideration advaace increnieats as per fhe State of Madhya Pradesh, pleaded ia ttie petition. Nb o!E circulfcr Court iu -fhe case of Asha fhis Court has ateo takcc a i.2009 passed ia W.P.(S) No. further subniits ftiat fhe Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, of the Suprexue Ctourt in |and fhe oidcr passed by this >. 87/2009, directions have fhe case for grant of two dated 21.9.1974 issiied bv dfter veriftcation of ftie facts Coiinsel for the State subiriits fhat case ofttie petiti&ner wouU also be considered on the spnie Unes. XI-HC—78 ^ST -^WV^, 'S'CSWfS, r^vM-tty ^WVM CbTllcb Tl^.200 3n^i Tra^' ('^3^.^) sn^y w h-v* ^Tf STI^T sh^ ^l TRTIW ^fttT an^ft pefftw In. view direction to the before the competent aay sucb representation, consider the same in accordancl above, the petitioner to S^ appropriate representa.tion authority ailid It is niade clear that fhis ( opinion on xnerits of the case E would be at Uberty to decide fhe si thl'H^'^l •HiHcft "4 T-&^\ <Rn<-^l< ^aififtt sn^i l.tion is disposed of with a appropriate representa.tion in. the eventaaiily of filinj coinpetent aufhority shaB e with law and would pass pourt has not expicssed any ind fhe authoritv concemed taie in. accordance wifh. law. Sd/- PritJRker Diwaker ^? Judge r^