IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF^;HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.J WRITPETITIONJ S_)^Q3^£iSOF_2011 PETITIONERS: /' Ravishankar Narang S/o. Shri- Meghram Narang, aged about 45 years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School, Lailunga, Distt.-Raigarh C.G VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,^^^ ^s^ 'y6SC..--"0° '^"' 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) ;. The Assistant Commissioner , Tribal Development Raigarh Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Lailunga,Distt.-Raigarh(C.G) 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury ^ Account 8s Pension, ? Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •s^ K- .ff' \K»sy^ .:|% ^ HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) W.P(S). No. 3943 of 2011 Ravishankar Narang VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh and others ResRpnclents Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, PL for the State. Q RD E R (28.07.201-i) The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department on 13.12.1989 vide Ex. P-1 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding t\iyo advance increments in his salary though he has done B.Ed from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma Open Uniyersity; Chhattisgarh; Bilaspur at his own cost in the year 2009 after seeking permission from the Department. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of teachers who were appointed by the Schooi Education Department, the benefit has already been extended pursuant to the cireular 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. Badrinarayan Achawa and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj vs. Municipal Corporation. Durg and another reported in 2006 (II) 3 Learned State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a rresh representation to the respondent No.2 and his case would be considered by the respondent No.2 in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court and also considering the fact that the petitioner who is an employee of the Tribal Welfare Department is a!so entitled for the same benefit or not. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the proposition given by the Government Advocate. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.2 apprising the said authority about the factual and legal position and in the eventualityof filing of any such representation, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of filing of such representation. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at iiberty to decide the representation in accordance with lav/ after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. SA1-. Priya ^tV»v^t Y»\vs^at