g^l.^ IN^HEHON3LENI6H40UICTQ|SGHMATTIS^R BlLASPURfC.G.) W.P. (SyNO. 3-^'^ /2010 PETinONER -sf ^ ,)\^^ .OX ^<M^ w^y ^\y .'A RESPONDENTS Vijay Kumar Sanadya 5/0 Shn Jqgwat Prasad Sariadya; Aged about 40 years, Upper Division Teacher, 6overnment Middle School AAuru, Takhatpur Distt. BHaspur(G.©.) VERSUS 1. Stafeof Chhattisgarh Tht''ough Secretary, Tribal Welfdre DepaiTtmenf fcK.S. Bhawdh,Rdipur(C.G.) 2. / Gommissioner TribleWelfare Departmerit, Raipur(C.G.3 3. ^ AssistQntCoKimisioner^ ; Tribal Welfdre Departmenl' ^ Bilaspui-(C.©.)^ 4^ Jomt Directfir, Treasury^ & Pensipn BilSSpl.irISistt.Bildspi.iF ':<c.^)'-,.,:;',,:;Y^:.;,;^:-^ WRrTPET:n30NU/A 226/22^ ORai-lE.GONStlMtJTiON^^^ •OF,^N@IX''~'':^:.':::;.'^ KSKSaslm M^N^;^ M^ I-HC—78 sn^rw Pt-iw nwsn^Twnw <IWCtT^Nra» TEET rf||A||(>14|, 8)flly'l<o, f««'ll'H^< ^A.&l^3^1".. WI. 200 s^i '^sfi (lcifd'!i's?) TCITWHft?! 311^1 SB : Hon'ble Shri ManindraJBohs 26-07-2010 Shri K. S. Pawar, counsel fb< Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel advance copy. Heard. Learned counsel appearin^ petitioner is entitled to benefit of he having passed B. T. I. examina< cost. ft is submitted that the issu^ longer res ihtegra and the same Supreme Court in the case of Asl^a 2009 Pll) MPJR (SC) 59 as also t\ case of Yashwant Kwnar & anottier 2006 (2) MPJR-CG 96\ has also taken a similar view in U W,P,(S)No.3250of2010. On the other hand, respondents-State is that this petititsn approaoh to the State Governmen<[ make representation, the same will accordance with law. o his am In this view of the matter, at this stage. It would be open foi| Government by making appropria|te treatment on the basis of ordert ^r^i^ft't 'Hra^Tf ^ l^st' <f^$R ^i'srRtH.sti^?! n Shrivastava. J. the petitioner. -awyer for the State/respondents on for the petitioner submits that the advance increments on account of ion before his appointment at his own involved in the present petition is rio been finally decided by the Hon'ble SaxenS vs. Stete of M.P. & Ors., te orders passed by this Court in the wj vs. MunScapal Cwporatton, Durg It is further submitted that this Court is orcter dated 06-07-2010 passed in subrliission of tearned counsel for the has been filed without making any He prays that if the petittoner would be considered on its own merits and in not inclined to entertain this petition the petitioner to approach the State representation, olaiming parity of referred to above. In case such ~% j ^sgia^ 1^ sn^t w ft-fi* ^FTsE^fi Ctll dfl^T St)*flct> Tumane ^- HWCIT 9»<<i<^ 3^ '^WW-i, »fl)'M<l(o, fs|<rliy^< ..^.J.:!?^.:!^/^.Wt 200 sn^r 'q?qr ('jqt^i^) ^<<ffW ^Sft ^T^T 1- representation is made, respondents with law. tSPlIwqt'l 'flW?if ^f'fe^ <Rqt$l< ^sfRpTsn^r shalt deckle the same in accorctance With the aforesaid observationjs, the petjtksn stands disposed of. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava --. Judge il."e'-fiiT(-r3Slfg»~IRW,<R^<?li'T-'-FS.'I47—2.'2010—1,00,000.