IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.(smo. WSM OF 2011. PETITIONER {/’Virendra Kumar Deshmukh, S/ o. Shri Fattu Ram 'Deshmukh, aged about years, Lecturer, Govt. High School Bital, Block Doundi, District Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : l/S’t'ate of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Commissioner, Schedule Caste and Schedule TribqlWelfare Department, Pt. Ravishankar shukla Premises Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) / 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribg/LWelfare Department, Durg, Distt. Durg, (C.G.) f 4”? Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS my @ N WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M SB : HON’BLE MR. JUsTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.!S!.NO. 7566 l 201 1 PETXTIONER Virendra Kumal‘ Deshmukh VCI‘SuS RESPONDENTs State of Chhattisgarh 8:. Shn' Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri QVShridhar, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Others ORDER (13.12.2011) The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the Tn'bal Welfare Department in the year 1989 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary though he has done B.Ed. from Pt. Ravi Shankai’ Shukla University, Raipur at his own cost in the year 2003 after seeking permission from the Department. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of the teachers who were appointed by the School Education Department, the benefit has already been extended pursuant to the circular issued by the Government and also pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of MP. 8a Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of Yashwant Kumar BhWq vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (m MPJR 96 (CG). State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the resp. No.2 and his case would, be considered by the resp. No.2 in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Couit and also considering the fact. that the petitioner who is the employee of the Tribal Welfare Department is also entitled for the same benefit or not. Counsel for the petitioner agrees to tha proposition given by the Govern ment Advocate. In View of the above, the petition is disposed of with. a direction to the petitioner to f11e a fresh representation before the resp. No.2 apprising the said authon‘ty about the factual and legal position and in the eventuality of filing of any such representation, the resp. No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably Within a period of four months from the date of receipt of filing of such representation. It is made. clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would. be at liberty to decide the representation ofthe petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge s