(^ "•i se ne"i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.) N0. r^ /2010 PETITIONER ./^X /r\t> ^N^ s^'n^ c," ,^'^' ^...-€?>' ?s'^?/ •^' ^' ^'J y^ y' Parasnath Naik S/o Rameshwar Naik, Aged about 45 years, Occupation Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, Govt. Higher Secondaiy School, Toushir, Block Baramkela, District : Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3: State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Principal Govemment Higher Sceondary School, Tousir, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION _UNDER _ ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQRISSUANCE_OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS _CERTIORARY _OR, ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. 4. ^; p ^5( ^WIdl, -^itOTS, 'faWHy 3T(^T ^I^ ^-1^(co 111CTI Shtlltf ~J:£.:.0>..).A^^ 200 311^1^ f^iiaTsnlsi WSK sn^rTR'iWtfe WTfepin •qrcff^ ftist ^T^R ^•siNtTan^i 2.Q'Jlj^~<S- Shri D.R.Patel, couasel Shri Ajit Singh, P.L. for 3ie State. Grievance of tlie petitioner ^u fiie present petitioTt is tliat fhe petiuonerwas initiaUy appoin.(;ed on the post ofDy. Teacher m fhe School Educalioa deparmie|if oii 19.07.98 aad though be is entitled for two advaace iacrelitents but the saiue bas not been given to him. Counsel for fhe petitioner sijib.mits that the petitioaer has *r' doae his B.Ed. on 25.05.97 froija H:uidi Sahilya Samtaellan, Allah.abad at his own cost and tyerefore he is entitled for two advaace nicrements. He subniits tfhat his represeiitation dated 15.2.2009 (Aniiexure P/6) is pe(iding before the conipetent auf&ority and at fhis stage, fhe p^: niay be pennitted to withdraw £hi) fbe competent authority to decide fhe petiuoner. Counsel for the peti^ioner subiuits fhat the order dated 29.4.2010 passed m Writ A^peal N0. 124/2009, wherein 1 relying upon fhe judgiueat of the ^upreiae Coirrt ia the case of j Asha Saxena Vs. State ofM.P. 8s prs. 2009 (IIIjMPJR (SCj 58 ! and ftie order passed by fbis Courf: iu aaother Writ Appeal No. ) 187/2009, directions have been iss^ied for consideration of tlie case for graiit of two advaace incr^meats as per circular dafed 121.9.1974 issued by the State jof Madhya I verification of the facts pleaded ia tte petition. irpose would be sen/ed if he i petition witli a direction to She peadiag representation of t^5^'< t^ |a-HC-22 tes^i 1^ sf)4ich ^I?cT '^si '•^pfRPT, ^Tl)y'lt«, fawitiy an^r t^ra? HWWI thlich •M 2BO State counsel subniits that representation to the conceinei objectiou. if any du-ecnon is representation ia accordaace witU llet fhe petitioner m.ake a fresh fl autliority aud he has no b^iiig issued. for deciding his law. Accordingly, the petitioaer petitioa with liberty to niaJse q auftiority conceraed wifhia a pe] date of receipt of copy of fhis on from. fhe authorities concemed farfher period of folir laonths fr accordance with law. It is inade clear that this opinion on inerits of the case would be at liberty to decide the l strictlv in accordance with law. ———1_ '!kl<l[cl41-< IIHCTl''? 'fSTA <r»l«!< ^'siPgiTsn^i is pennitted to wifhdraw this fresh repi^sentation to the riod of three weeks' froia the ler aad in tum it is exuected to decide the saine wifhin a 3m. the date of its receipt, in Court has not expressed aiiy ^uid the auttioritv coacemed ^.presentation ofthe petitioner Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge