c^ G^' & IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSOARH AT PETITIONER lliilJS RESPONDENTS s?w r^f^ ^% v...--^^ Y^^- •<1'^':\?>"' .,^s'^-" \..t BIIASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^ ^if^ f2010 F'uran Singh Damak S/o Shree Ramvir Singh, aged about 58 years, presently posted as Head Master at Govemment Higher Secondary School Luma Teh. Makdi, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS : / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare , Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) <^2. Commissioner , Department of Tribal Welfare Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) t^3. Assistant Commissioner, Department ofTribalWelfare Jagdalpur, District Bastar , (C.G.) -4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Acconut and Pension, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PARTICULJ 3D^t qrt 1^'il'ti '^sff ^^\ 9n*ii<^) '3'^ -iiitii<n'4, aTil'M'is, fs)dl'9y,< ..U..0...^i...fi^.:....£s^ (p Sfl^<I Siq) WITW ^lftTI 311^(1 15.11.2010 Shri Sanjeev Kuiaar Sahi Shri Vivek Shanna, P.L. counsel for the petitioner. S>r the State. loneir Counsel for the petitionejr entifled to benefit of two advadc haviag passed B.T.I. exainuiati(j>n before his appointment at his own cost. It is subinitted fhat petition is no longer res in.fegrij1 decided by fhe Hoa'ble Supre|aa.e Saxena Vs. State of SB.P. & Or^. fce Supre|aa.e It is furth.er subniitted f|i similar view m. its order datedl 6257/2008. Counsel for fhe order dated 29.4.2010 passedj wherein relyiag upon rtie judj case ofAsha Saxena (supra) in aaofb.er Writ Appeal No. issued for consideration of th(i iiicreiiients as per circiilar of Madhya Pradesh, after pention. Coiinsel for the State sul^ would also be considered on W q'>N[<yI<ti1 TnT^ff "^ 'fel3t <f^R^:R ^aifiTHSB^I submits that fhe petitioner is •e incremeats ori. accouat of he issue nivolved in the present ttie same has been fiualtv ae Court in tiie case of Asha . 2009 (IIIJMPJR (SCj 59. datekl verifid'ation lat this Court has also taken a 6.2.2009 passed m W.P.(S) No. further submits thst tlie ia Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, of the Suurcine Court in fhe the order passed by this Court S7/2009, direcnons have been case for grant of two advaace 21.9.1974 issued bv the State of the facts pleaded ia fhe pejtitloner xclent anld jmits that case of tlie petitioners same lines. l^ ^ '-HC—78 d | •<i|t|K»i<|, ®Ti|^<|<o,{s|<vl|'y^< sn^l ^?? (Tlfj^?) an^l ^l R-fi* 'cTsn afn^?TsF?ri^r -!- ^siiwofef sn^i In view of above, the p direction to the respondent petitioner for graat of two dated 21.9.1974 issued by fhe verification of tiie facts pleaded eight weeks froiu today. It is laade clear fhat this opinion on inerits of the case would be at tiberty to decide with law. a^tition is disposed of with a aufh<l)rities to decide the claun oftlie adva^ice iucreinents as per circular Btate of Madhva Pradesh afier i|l ttte petition within a period of Court has not expressed any and ttie authority concenied saine stnctlv ia accordauce tliie ^T<i[tti<Hi 'w^rf ^ 1^11^ ^K-^K ^aTfinsnt^T Sd/- -. pritinker Diwakar Judge -^![2' [E^i'linnB-Rc-i