^w^' & IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR e^h WRIT PETITION (S) No; ~ " /2010 SB PETITIONER ID.....;-,-A(* .^Q<^^ ^-^ .!,!%?:"" ^y.."-- Aa^0-' ,A.-- Smt. Nurani Nath W/o Late Shri. P.Nath, aged about 55 years Working as Assistant Teacher E.B.A. Mission Primary School, VERSUS Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (CG) RESPONDENTS 1; State OfChhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Scool Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, District-Raipur (CG) 2. Director, Director ofPublic Instruction, Pensan Bada, District-Raipur (CG) 3. District Education Officer Jagdalpur District-Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DEEMED FIT- IC—78. ^IN^iI ^tPW^ -^5T '^i^Kn-4, ^•dl-y^to, [®idiy^< ..y:.£...^)...^:..^xl^. ^I^T ^S^ (^3^?) W^T^T^N- ^m^T^T^^ ^^TWHft^ 3Ti^l SB : HON^BLE MR. JUSTICB PRlTINKBR DIWAKBR ^11.2010 Shri Azad Siddiqui, counsel Shri Sum.esh Bajaj, Dy\ G.f\ Grievance of ftie petitioner| for two advance increments biit on to her for no reasons. He sul niatters have been decided by tbi have been permitted to ffle a reij order has been .fil.ed bv fhe petitid for the petitioner. ., for fhe State. is thst thougli she i.s en.titied. fii.e sam.e hs.s not been. passed ^mits fb..at niiiisber of i.deuti.cal |is C-ourt where the petitioners |reseiitatioii^ copy of one such jner as Annexure P-6. Counsel for tb.e petitioBer the Suprerae Court ia the case M»P. & OtMers, 2009 |III] MPJS| this Court. io. tlie case of Miiaiclpal Corporatlons Diirg S^ 96 p^iid in the ca.se. of Chhaftisgarh & Ofefeers, W.P.(Bt of two advaTi.ee m.cremen.ts lia.s B.Ed. degree was obtanied;, is al| petitioner, a.s the cireulai's sou| who had obtained B.Ed/BTI TIJE further siibmits 'that he m.ay l{ petition witli liberty to m.akjc respondent No.3 for d.eci.ding thej ^Rf^R W^ff ^ fexzt 1[f^R ^^toaTT^l Yas^want |s-iibmits fhat the jud.giiient of !of Baxesia ¥s. state of ISC} 59 aad ord.ers passed by Kiasnar Bharadwaj Vs. Asother, 2006 (2|. MPJR-CJ Kaat Sia^h Vs. Sfeate of TSo.625'7.1QS, wherem bene&t )ee.B, Rraiited on th.e basi-s tli.at ^o appUcable to the ca.se ofth.e ^ht to extend. bcnefit to those aio.m.g, like the peti.tio.ner, He penn-itted to witiidi'aw this repre.senta.tio.n before tlie sam.e in accordaace with law. ^ -%^ \ ^;lBi-. ^ '-•^L&:M^:h. 7' <yo "•,;.., 'tsaf;^Xl-HC—78 ^A^^''' ^sr ^ii^Kn^i^ ^Til<-s^<o, [®s<ni^^< ..L[.£:...^l^..:^J^l^ sr^r'1^^ (^t3^q) an^T'^T'^t^' ^^T ^T^T ^^iefi I^TW^ft^^T^I On the other hand, counse] has no objection if the petitionei fhe sanic is decided in accordaii.cd In view of above, fhe petiti^ fiiis petition wi.th. Hberty to ti respondent N0.3 and in.tun:4 fh^ to decide the representation so Sk ^Rfef^T "Wl^ff ^ I^S Tf^R^R ^? 3?RR ^?Tt^T for. the State sub.mits fhat he inalces a representation aiid with law. >iier is permi.tted. to with.d.raw le representatk)ii befbre tfa.e resposident N0/3 is expected |d, ic. accoixl.aB.ee with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge