<^^/^7 4 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N&i^) /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Gopal Singh Pandram S/o Shri Baisakhu Ram Pandram aged about 40 Years, Upper Division Teacher, presently working at Govt. Middle School Birkona, Block- Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block Bilha District Bilaspur 4. ^ Joint Director, Treasury,accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2. 3. ^TT^r^FT'RpfW '<TO ^TT^T SD*IW HWVll W»H|Ct» '^ST «4i^i<^^, ^Ttl'M<i<o, T®ldl^!j,< ....V...p....^..(r<».:..^.!.^2oo .^1 3TT^?T TT5R7 ( ^I^^) ^wi^R tif^a 3TT^T S.B.: HOH'BLE MR. JUSTECEl <ibl^fd4lt1 "RT^ff ^ fS^ ^^K ^^tfm 317^1 PRITINKBRmWAKER 29.Q7.2Q11 Shri Ajay Badk., couxise^ for fhe petitioiier, Shri N. Natia Roy, P.L. f<|>r the State. Counsel. for the petitioujer subniits fhat fh.e peti.tion.er i,s entitled to benefit of two advabce iacrenients on accoiiiit of h.e having passed B.TJ« examio.ai own cost. It is submitted tliat decided by fhe Hon'ble Supi IO.H before his appom.tiBe.Bt at his fhe issue io.volved ia fhe present petition is no longer res integ^a and tlie same ha.% been fm-ally ^iae Court in fh.e case of Asha Saxena Vs. State ofM.P. 8s 0{rs. 2009 (III)MPJR (Sq 59. It is fixrther subiQ.itted tfaat this Court has al.so taken a simiiar view in. its order date^ 6.2.2009 passed ia W..E(S) No. 6257/2008. Counsel for the p^titioner furtfaer siibmits tfaat tlie oider dated 29. 4.2010 passejd in Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, whereiii relym.g upon fhe jud|gme.nt of the Supreine Coiirt in fhe case of Asha Sa&Hex&a (su^ra) aad the order passed by ti^is Court' ia another Writ Appe^l No» 8772009., directions have been issixed for consideratioi the State of Madhya Pradcs" pleaded io. fh,e petitioii, [i of fhe case for grant of two advaace rn.creraeiits.as per ci^ciilar dated 21.9,1974 issued by i, ater verificattoii of fb,e facts Couusel for fhe State si^bmitB that case of the petitioner would also be considered on tlb.e same liaes. XI-HC—78 ^qn^T ^r'ft^N? "^Sff 37T^T 9FWF 'S'ST ^i^Kn^,ya1^<Ko, fs«rii'y'j,< W»T<rlT»»*11<t» TFI, 200 ^TT^T 'Tra^ ( y<Is<sl<i^) ¥^nw^rf?n3^r In view of above^ th^ direction to fhe petitioner before the competent aiitlior|; any such representatioii, consider the same iii appropriate order, petition is 'disposed of with a 1:0 file appropriate representation .iitliority ao.d in fhe eveiitaaUty of filing fhe competent auttiority sh.aU accoijdaace with law and woiild pass It is ma.de clear fhat 1 opiiiion on m.eri.ts of the c^ woiild be a.t Uberty to decide <»»i^(<n<fli^TW^ff "^f fs^ <F^<^i< ^3tRW3TT^r ^his Court has not expressed any ^se aiid. fh.e autib.ori.ty concenied the sam.e ia accordao.ee with law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge