lN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 39E Working as Assistant Teacher E.B.A. Mission Primary School, Jagdalpur, District—Bastar (CG) VERSUS f RESPONDENTS l. State OfChhaItisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Scool Education, Mantralaya. DKS Bhawani District-Raipur (CG) 2. Director, DirectOr of Public Instruction, Pensan Bada, District-Raipur (CG) Va 3. District Education Officer Jagdalpur District—Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THF mRIIANCF. MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS 7 1 (V é DEEMED FIT- ,/ Ii Particulars of the Petitioner— WRIT PETITION ( S) N0. /2O 1 O SB / gr’ PETITIONER Smt.Renu Habil W/o Shri. wk gla’ {O& “Mm éma'g’ S. Habil, aged about 54 years, WWW wmm Wmm WW WW B: Han’ble Mr. Justice Pri 8-10-2010 Mr. Azad Siddique, couns I forthe petitioner. a Mr. Vivek Sharma, Pane! wyer for the State/respondents. Heard. Grievance of the petition r is that though she is entitled for two advance increments but the sa e have not been passed on her for no reason. It is aiso stated in th petition that the petitioner holds the qualification of Diploma in Teac ing. Learned counsel for th petitioner submits that numbers of identical matters have been deo ed by this Court where the petitioners have been permitted to file repr sentation, copy of one such order has been filed by the petitioner as A nexure P-5. Learned counsel for: th petitioner further submits that the judgment of the Supreme Co in the case of Asha Saxena v. State of M.P.r& others {2009 (ill) MP R (SC) 59}, the orders passed by this Court in the case of Yashwt Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & another{ 006 (2) MPJR-CG 96} and in the case of Salil Kant Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & others (W.P.(S) No.6257l2008), wherein the b nefit of two advance increments has been granted on the basis tha B.Ed. degree was obtained, is‘also applicable to the case of the p titioner herein, as the circulars sought to extend benefit to those who had obtained B.Ed./BTI Training, like the petitioner herein. Learned ounsel also submits that the petitioner / / S tin‘ u XI—HC—78 . . w fr .s). WW 3mm (Wu) mm g9 )9 w] b 200 WWW WWW wmK %aimsn%¥r this petition wfth iiberty to make ent No.3 for deciding the same in may be permutea to Witndra‘ representation before responc accordance with law. On the other hand, learne objection if the petitioner ma decided in accordance with law. in View of the above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file repres ntation before respondent No.3 and in turn, respondent No.3 is expect in accordance with iaw. Ordered accordingly. d State counsei submits that he has no es representation and the same is Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge cl to decide the representation so filedr