t i5-^ff^] IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.IS1 N0. S43^ /2010 PETITIONERS -*at ,/^>' o•/ '^.- / ".* vY »/ ^y%/ ^y 7.^ ^/vy -•<-• <- l*. B.D. Patel S/o Shri Nanhuram Patel, aged about 52 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gorpur, Block Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Sukh Lal Patel, S/o Shri Chandrapal Patel, aged about 53 years, Upper Division Teacher, Girl's Middle School, Laxmipur, Block Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Lochan Prasad Naik, S/o Shri Udho Ram, aged about 56 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. High School, Pendorama, Block Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. Balmukund Patel, S/o Sunder Lal, aged about 46 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary Schoo, Sapos, Block Dabhra, Distt. janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ^. ^" RESPONDENTS ^w^fs^-. ^" ^•\^ / 5. Ganpati Lal Patel, S/o Vasudev Patel, aged about 48 years, Assistant Teacher Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sapos, Block Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6. Laxmi Prasad Sidar, S/o Parishit Ram, aged about 51 years, Head Master, Girls Middle School, Kotmi, Block Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir- ChampafC.G.) 7. Kolbahra Kishora, S/o Daras Ram, aged about 58 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Kargoan, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 8. Chandramani Maitry S/o Jagmohan Maitry, aged about 60 years, Govt. Middle School, Putidih, Block Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) V-- 3 <--' 2. Commissioner, Tribal SB Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education OfRcer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. r an^i ^sr Ri'fi* VR 3iI^?I shw* Tumane !Q "S'31 '^iqidq, ®Tlly'IS,[sSMK-iy W , ^..CS.1 (V^ r^95r/'L&10 sffl^i 'sr:w (1pf3^p) WITOt flftB 311^1 SB^ HonWe Shri Manindra Mohail 26-07-2010 Shri Ajay Kumar Barik, oouns^l - Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel La|i advanoe copy. l-1eard on admission. Submission of learned counsy the govemment oircular dated 29-Q entitled to two acfvance increments planning operation. It is further Administrative Tribunal had decided also passed an order in a similar c^ 2009. (Annexure P-4) 1 find that the present petitiotji justice from the respondent application/representation. In this view ofthe matter, it wct to make representation seeking In case, representatbns are prefe|- consider and decide the same in emphasize, in oase, grievance ofthe) the petituners shall be at liberty to t^k be available to them under the law. In view offoregoing, the petitic} 'bllf.flll'f tllHcif 4 'fe^ 4l"lt<;l< i? sifg*! SD^I Shrivastava. J. for the petitioners. wyer for the State/respondents on for the petitioners js that in view of 11-1979, each of the petitioners are as they had undeigone family submitted that earlier the State the issue, and later on, this Court has ^se (W.P.(s)No.7 of 2009) on 06-01- jiers have not raised any demand of authorities by making any ^utd be proper to allow the petitionere derr|and of justice from the respondents. !|-red, the oompetent authority shall laccordance with law. Needless to Ipetitioners still remains unredressed, t^ke recourse to such remedy as may n is finally disposed of. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava , Judge a'G'Sii? ¥"(!?3»-i|ItPr,(iy]"i?rH -'-FX'147—2'2810—1,00,000.