_@@ c d? /$07. ,_ m THE HIGH covm‘ OF cHHA'r'rlseARH AT BILASPUR w. P. ($1 No. M § é? OF 2011. /Smt. Saroj Sahu, W/o. Shri Laxminath Sahu, aged about 40 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Annapurnapara, Kanker, Block Kanker, District Kanker PETITIONER (C.G.) ‘ V E R S U S RESPONDENTS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) / 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasuiy Account and Pension, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar at y Jagdalpur (C. G.) / @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3a 1mm, @Wn‘ag, W “WT www.:.?{sjmgm/Lqu “IF: 200 ‘vx SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra M( 12-08-2011 Shri Somkant Verma, cou nsel for the petitioner. Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel advance copy. Heard. Lgarned counsel appea petitioner is entitled to benefit c she having passed B. T. I. exa cost. It is submitted that the ist longer res integra and the same Supreme Court in the case of i 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59. It is further submitted the in his order dated 06-02-200 Learned counsel for the petition order dated 29-04-2010 passed relying upon the judgment cf t Saxena (supra) and the order pa No.87/2009, directions have bee grant of two advance increment: by the State of Madhya Pradest the petition. irespondents submits that now the State Learned counsel for the Government had issued a circt ilar on 05-01-2011 and the case of the than Shrivastava, J. Lawyer for the State/respondents on ’ing for the petitioner submits that the ftwo advance increments on account of mination before appointment at her own ue involved in the present petition is no has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Asha Saxena vs. State of M.P. & Ors., tthis Court has also taken a similar view 3 passed in W.P.(S)No.6257 of 2008. er further draws attention of this Court to in Writ Appeal No.124 of 2009, wherein he Supreme Court in the case of Asha ssed by this Court in another Writ Appeal n issued for consideration of the case for t as per circular dated 21-09-1 974 issued Li. after verification of the facts pleaded in m m (wiamu) l 1, W mm am E . man 1m mam W11 a; 'mrr?f f '§ Fgtér 11%?W 3a W, @Y‘i E1 a; WI petitioner would be examined in th Government. I inayie’wV of, the statement rr di$posed9f witihga‘direction to the re ;_ decide, the:claim;of the petitioner for view of the law laid down as also issued by the State Government on facts pleaded in the petition within a of receipt of a copy of this order. Tumane a light of the decision of the State ade above, this petition is finally spondent authorities to consider and grant of two advance increments in n view of circular, which has been 05-01—2011, after verification of the Jeriod of three months from the date I. Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ~ want): aa’tw newton. naafarlia—FSIMo—z/zw 1» ~ I 50,000. mm “200 mmqaiga’qu) WWW mmm mgrmwa“ L, ,_ WM‘ €$aifwi1§¥1 Q3W