m; HON B E HIG , COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUH w.P.(S) N0. gm? X2010 $E§3$iE gENgE‘ PETITIONEgs’ : 1.(/ Ishwar Das Thaku: Slo Laie Jagtu Ram Thakur, Aged about 36 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government Higher Secondary Sc ool, Rakse, Block- Sahaspur ' Lohara, DisttKabirdham— (C.G.) 2 /T11ak Ram ieMm&d“ava’ /o ¢§§§m3mgh V) Aged abom 44 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle V ’ i School, Karlan, Block- Sahas‘pur Lohara, DimKabirdhm- (C.G.) Madanlal Khare S/o Latkhor Khare Aged about 36years Upper D1v1310n Teacher ‘ Government Mrddle School, Sllhan, Block-r Sahaspur Lohara, Distt.Kabildham— (C.G.) VERSUS K’ ,1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary; Department of Educa§om D.K.S. Bhawan, fRaipnr. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Public 'Insmwtion, Chhaxtisgarh Government Raipur, istt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Dietrict Education officer, Distt.Kabirdham (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETITION UfA 226/227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA The getmoners named above most respectfully beg to ' submrt as under ~ PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER d“ e—llwe T w S 9....%.;.§Mw W 200 . ‘ mm (ma) mmfaw WWW WW W®W lawmm mmm $3 : HGIE’ELE MR. JgS’E‘ICE EQETH‘IKER BIWAKER 93.99.2919 v Shri Deepak Jain, counseL for the petitioners. Smt. Smita Ghai, PL. fer Lhs Stata Gri€vance of the yeti’tio aers i3 that though they am entitled for two alivance: incrsm ants but €116 sama has no? been passed on to them for no reasc ns. He submits that numbar of identical mattsrs havg bwti d: cidéd bV $is Couri Wham tha p$fitioners havs been §ermitfed to iiie a representavion; cepy of two such orders have been flied by {he petitioners as Anneuxre P-6 8a P—7. Counsel for the petitionexs submits That the judgment of the Supmme Court m the cas: of Asha $axena V5. state of M.P. & Others, 2009 (III) MP gSC) 59 and. orders passed by this Coult ii: the case of Ya hwant Kumar Bhara&waj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg Azwther,‘ 2006 (2g MPJR—CJ 96 emd in the ease of Sa .E Kam mug}: Vs. State of Ckha£tisgarh 85 Others, W‘.P.€ ) No.6257l$8, whereiz; ‘oenefit of two advance morements has been gnawed on. the basis that BEd. degree was obfaineci, is o apolioabEe i0 tgle case of the petitioners, as the cirouiars so ght to extend benefit 110 Yhose who haé; o‘majned B.E(i/BT1 Taming, h‘ke the petitioners. He further submits mat-they mag be eemitieci to Wighoraw flgis x A; r-‘vx/ $ J s mm $7200 mm (Wwf ‘ WWW WWW math-m wwwawm pe’d’don, with liberty to mak respondent No.3 fer deci§i11g tha On tha othar hand, calms: has no objection if tho petitions the same is docidod m accordance with 1&W. In View of above, the petitioners are perm'med to withéraw this petition with Liberty to iEie 1e§>resentation before the respondent N03 and in. turn, tke I‘esgwomi‘ent N03 is exeected to decide the representation so fiied, in accordance with law. " Sd/. \ \ animm = represontation befom me ‘samo in afccmoanco with iaw. ! .1 for tho State, submits tha: ho rs make a representation aad Pritinker Diwaker Judge