U^2<5^ SingleBench iNTHEmiGmCCtU^QFGlIHATTlSGARHA'IlBILASF'IIR w..-]P.](Sl;;N<[>...i ;.% 0G2-: :6F:.i20ll,: E'^i'ITIONERS ^y^^ .^^€^' rv'^^y \\ //>E-' /< . f' ^ ^ ./ ^s%v' ^y^y <yy^- • 0"i" : 1. Raj Kui-nar Salru, S/6. Shri Prabhu Rara Saltu, aged about 42 years, Heaid MasterGQvt. Prmia;ry Sch6t)l Manollara,' BIock Dl'liarsivaj Disti-iet Raipur (C.G.) 2. Gajanscnd Sahu, S/0. Sliri Shatnihan Ram Sahu, aged about 41 years, Head Master Govt. Prirnary School Akhrapai-a KUrud, Block Dharsiva, District Raipuf (C.G.) XERSUS RESTONDENTS 1" State ofChhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Eduicaticin^Departmetit D.K.S. Bhawan, EaipurfC;. G.) ^*». .. . .' „ .' .'. ' •- „ .„.' 2,' District Education OHicer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) s.^ 3.' TreasuryOfficer, ' Treasuiy Account and PertSion, Raipur, Disft. Raipur, (C.G.) f'c.li •:.?n;.[R3Tni'";'~TrET-i'J3£I3 4. Bldcfc Education OfSeet, Dharsiva, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) WRlTJ>El']['nONUi[rDERARTICLE2260FTHE CON!STiTUnONOFI]WDIA ^si •<\ww<i, •&^\w\'a, fsjdi'yy,'1. ^\M,(/.^^^^>Z/1A •""/•" SII^I '73^ (l^=lij»I^T) sn^i qn ISi-ti'* ^STT Sf^\ ?h+)|<ft SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan ^^. ^<iiWBfei3n^r 20-06^011 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for Shri Y. S. Thakur, Deput^ State/respondents on advance copy. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners are entitledto benefit oftwo they having passed B. T. I. examinatioi|i cost. It is submitted that the issue inv()l longer res integra and the same has Supreme Court in the case of Asfia S^ 2009 (III) IWJR (SC) 59.It is further 4 taken a similar view in his ordert W.P.(S)No.6257of2008. Learned attention of this Court to order datect No. 124 of 2009, wherein relying upon in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) anc) another Writ Appeal No. 87/2009, d| oonsideration of the case for grant ofl circular dated 21-09-1974 issued by th[ verification of the facts pleaded in the pe( Learned oounsel for the responitli Government had issued a circular on petitioners would be examined in the Government. bten courtse tliie wiforah 'wrcif if 'fsls> <fai«;i< ^aifimsir^i he petitionere. Advocate General for the the petitioners submits that the fcdvance increments on account of before appointment at their own 'lved in the present petition is no finally decided by the Hon'ble S^xena vs. State of M.P. & Ors., tubmitted that this Court has also dated 06-02-2009 passed in for the petitioner ftjrther draws J9-04-2010 passed in Writ Appeat judgment of the Supreme Court the order passed by this Court in rections have been issued for two advance increments as per 1^ State of Madhya Pradesh, after tition. sponipents submits that now the State 105-01-2011 and e case of the |ight of the decision ofthe State ^?'a~*tss^ /'^w& '*& i, i^-^^^^ % J ^ XI-HC—78 €) ^wvn WTW "3~S! '<jl^K»l<1, S>Tll-y'|6, f^C'll-M^ ^^.iAt.L.fe2^.^..^y/.5.. 3T!^!TR^T (Tp^sl^ET) ai^rw R-)i<* ^TS{T 3ff^?T sRtff^ Tumans TOiiwflft^an^i 1 tn view ofthe statement made of with a direction to the respondent claim of the petitioners for grant of tv law laid down as also in view of cin State Governmenton 05-01-2011 (A facts pleaded in the petition within a receipt ofa copy ofthis order. ^bove, this petition is finally disposed luthorities to consider and decide the to advance increments in view of the |;ular, which has been issued by the hnexure P-7), after verification of the briod of three months from the date of ^li^T^T 'RTO^f ^* 'f^St '{f^r'^R ^T'STfiltt SD^I Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava T Judge