;NGLE BEWCH years. Head Master working as i, snr !f. •^'.•rsS- .•• ?^/\^ f//>~/^ -<s'~ r-S A'^Jy .[ , i spartment, MM'^IAV. 'ip'ri%'nr»'t ssion, Biiaspi IC:i "Ti ^L' ^"^ B" °7~i OF Tj- 3] HIQH COURT OW CHHArTISGAKH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITIMKBR DIWAKER W.P.6SI.NO. 6168/2011 Mahendra Pratap Siagh RESPOKDBNTS versus State ofC.G, & Ofhers Shri Amit Kumar Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shriyastava, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOH OF INDIA ORDER {17.10.2011} Counsel for the petitioner subnuts fhat his case is covered with fhe case of Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. 85 Ors. 2009 (III)MPJR (SC) 59 for graut of two advance iacreiaents as fhe petitioner has done D.Ed. He subiaits that he iiiay be pemutted to wifhdraw this petition wifh Uberty to inake representation and in turu du'ection may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of fhe petitioner in accordance with law. State counsel points out fhat so far as fhe Trifaal departaient is conceraed tiU date no such circular has been issued and therefore fb.e petitioner is not entifled for fhe benefit oftwo advance increments as per fhe decision ofthe Supreiae Court in Asha Saxena (supra). Be fhat as it niay, iu the eventualily of uiahing aay such representation by the petitioner, it is expected that the same would be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordauce with law. It is niade clear fhat this court has not expressed aay opiiuon <Sti the inerits of the case aad the authorily concemed would be at liberty to decide fhe representation strictly in. accordancewith law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker -.Judge