^ c- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No; ^ ^b/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Khsgesh Pratap Singh Kanwar S/o Shri Sukhi Ram Kanwar aged about 40 Years, Upper Division Teacher, presently working at Govt. Middle School Dhangao, Block- Korba, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1. ' State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Assistant C.ommissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Korba .^District Korba (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Treasury,accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) '*:::£=:==^ifRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 'ySf ^)|t||M4^ ®xll<-l'IIS,f°«'1l-Hlj,< HIH^tT tb^rai ^,..t^£.-^).ft*-...U.o.lt.'4? an^T 'tpw (1cl'da<'i'q) sn^T ^ii l<-fi'* cT^TT 3TI^T shHlch ^ TRfTOT ^fSd 3TI^( S.B.: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PBtITINKER DIWAKER 36.07.2011 Shri Ashwiai Shulda, coun^ ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. for Counsel for tbe petitioner entitled to beiiefit of two advanc^ increinents on account of he cbl<it^i<11l 14lHi?tf ^T 'f^st <Fif'^i< ^aifira 3ii^i S.el for fhe petitioner. Uie State. submits that tfae petition.er is having passed B.T.I. examination] c?wn cost It is subniitted fhat fh^ issue involved iu the present petition is uo longer res integra 4nd fhe saine has been finaUy decided by flie HonTile Suprem^ Court ia •fhe case of Asha Saxena Vs. State ofM.P. & Ors. It is fiirther subiuitted thalt suiular view in its order dated 6 6257/2008. Counsel for the petiljoner order dated 29..4.2010 passed i(i wherein relying upon the judgaij the case of Asha Saxeaa (supra)[ Coiirt ia another Writ Appeal been issued for consideration advance increinents as per cireu) the State of Madhya Pradesh, pleaded in fhe petition. before his appointment at his 2009 (III)MPJR (SC) 59. ftiis Court has also taken a |2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. further submits that tbe Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, lent of fhe Suprenie Court ia aad ttie order passed by flus >. 87/2009, directioas have |>f the case for grant of two jar dated 21.9.1974 issued bv yter verification of the facts dio Counsel for the State subifaits fhat case oftJie petitioaer j would also be considered on fbe fscme Unes. XI-HC—7S ^~ST •<fl^lM^, ©flly'Ko,fs|<'1l'My,< HIHCtT ^fW^t 3(1^1 TT^T (' [^) sn^r ^n K;-ii+ ^TT STT^T sh^flcft V-1 t iC' TRiiwafer OT^I In view of above, the petjition is disposed of wifh a direction to fhe petitioner to fil<^ appropriate representation before the coinpetent authority aijid in ttie eventuaKty offilin| aay such representation, the consider the same in accordanc appropriate order. chi*ilci^i '^TPTcff "^ 'f^zt <f<r(^H ^atRpTsn^r conipetent aufhority shafl with law and wouM pass It is siade clear fhat this < opinion on Baerits of the case would be at Uberty to decide the (pourt has aot expresaed any 4ud the authority conceraed staie in accordance wifh law. Sd/- PritiRker Diwaker Judge