HIGH COURT OF (3IBATTTSGARB AT B?LASPIIR srm^;' 3T]?O^D ^TR, 3n^ 40 ^4 3T1^F3r -^t ^'Q 7fr0 i^K 3^^1^i4i^ 3T(?3ra?Rt, yiof WTIER <dM\Wi^—^i^yd)4^ f^T-^l^? (W3TO) ^-H^^ : l.'S^fRFTS '?TRH. ^T?T: P^ ^ff^r. '^i^T '^TCTSR f^TFT, ^tO^S^O ^R, WTg7 (BO^TO) 2.3T^'5TUT "^Nt, ^T^r ^T?T1EFT ^!u<Sd-^^l^d4,< iT^T? (wnro) 3.^t44td-1 ^Nt, vTc-T WTPPT f^l^TFT-^pN, ^Tcn-^I^? (WTTO) W^T ^^ Sm^TT STRT 19 TjS?n7t?T ^TSq- ^RTRTf^ ^TJ^T^FT. (SB: Hoii'Ne Mr, ?€.AgmJiotn, J.) Preseiit : Siiri RakeNh Aiithoiw, Advocafe for the petitioiier. Smi Arvisid Dubey, Panel Lav^y'er for the State/respoodenfe^ ORALORDER (Passed 01123rd ofJAiiiaaiy, 2008) 1. The petitioner was gi'anted two advance increments 011 account offaniily plamiing operation 011 14.09/1993 Thereafter, the salaty ofthe petitioner was revis€?d 011 thc basis of the rccon'smendation made by 5 Pay Coniiiiission w.e.f 01.01.1996. The petitioner was not granted the said increme£itsm additioii to the revised pay scale. Nomially ai! the mcrements are merged when the pay scale is revised and granted to the employee, unless contrary is proved. 2. L^amed counsel appearing for the petitioner is not 'm position to produce any circular or any other documents indicating that the petitioner is still eiititled for two advance increments after revision ofpay scaie and grant of revised pay scales. 3. This petition lacks material infbmiation. The petitioner has failed to malce oirt a case for grant of a writAiirection in exercise of extraordmary jurisdiction. Thus, petition is accordingly dismissed No order asto costs< Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge