CAP \c90 (WLE BENCH C43 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITIONg’NO. %6 [2006 PETITIONER : / 1. C.H.J. Rao Slo IateShri C.H. Kamraju Age about 54 years, Higher Secondary School Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT :/' 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Schedule Tribe and Schedule cast walfare Department, Raipur. 2. Joint Director Through (Account and Pesion) Biiaspur Division, near S.E.C.L. office Sarkanda Biiaspur. ‘3. Principle Govt. Higher Secondary School (Tribal Welfare) New Pawan Tallas Railway Gate Bilaspur. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2f6T227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Em W " \ \ 7 9 % » HIEIH COUQT OF €HHATTIS£§A§H AT BELASPUR w. P. gs) No. 5255 of 2005 Pefi'i'Eoner : CHJ. Rag Versus Resparxdaw? : Sm’re Gav-t. of Chhm‘?isgarh <34 m‘hers $§ngie gemh: Hw'ble Mr. Jus'rice 59.?ish K. Aguihei‘ri. Shri Ajay Shrivasmm, Advocm'e for ’rhe Pe'mioner. Shri Sumesh Bujaj, Gavi Advotcri’e far frag Smi'a/rzspondem's. ORDER {4” amber, 2006) p... Learned counsaf appearing for 'Hvz pefi‘rimer submi‘m Thai’ whilz working as Upper Division Teacher, 'H‘ie pefifioner ha$ gone on imining 1’0 improve his qualificai’ians on his awn expenses and acquired B. Ed. Examina'riori Cerfifica’l’a an 16.10.198é (Annexure W2) fmm Bhopal University, Bhopal. #mcortiing Tc leamed ccunszl far fhe paii‘iianer, the pafi'i'ioner is gmified Ta mm advance incremen‘l’s in view of ihe decision of This 50w"? in “the case of Yashwanf Kumar Bhqmdwaj Vs. Municipu! Corpora‘fion, Burg and ansfher {269$ (XI) MPJR—C9 96}. This Cour? in “ii-[e case of Yashwan? Kumar- Bhamdwaj Vs. Municipai Corpom‘rian, Durg and anofher (Supra), came To fhe coi‘iciusian 'i’na'f The feathers, who had obiairied 8. Ed. /E.TI. Examirrm‘ian Ceriifica'ie on his awn expenses, are covered by é® 'f’he circuhr dafed 2412.98 (Annexure P/7) issued by "rhe Sm‘ie Gwemmenf of Madhyd Prudesh Learned ceunse! fa? The pa+ifioner further submifs 'H'm'r The fads and quasfim 9f faw involved én fhz presen'? mse aria square!y cgvar'ed by dzcisiorw of #his Cour‘!‘ in ‘H‘ie case of Vaghwam Kumar Bhamdwaj Vs. Munitipai Carpamfion, burg and anc'iJner (Supra), +0 which iearnzd caunsei appearing for The respondenfs fairiy comedes and agrees wi‘l'h fhe avermen-r made by iecxrned munsei appearing for fhe pefiiianer. Accardingiy, +he wrif pe’riiicn is aiiawed in 'I'er‘ms of The arder paseed ir; ‘ihe case of Yashwan“? Kumar Ehamdwaj Vs. Municipai Carpom‘i’ian, Burg em! anofher (Supra), subjec? Ta verificufiori of 'i'i'ie fac‘i‘ as 10 whei‘her the pefifianer has acquired B. Ed. Examinei’ian Cerfificafe an his awn experises and furfher whether he has been peici ‘MD advance incremen‘i’s a? nm‘. Na avden ae‘ 2m casis‘ i i i i ‘i Satish K. Agnihotri i i Sd/— Judge Babiu