...•••,,-^ 9--"^ .x^^^' ^•"^^ ^Sf^ ....-• ^F^ -l^'^'" '••" ^•'\y x ..••" k."'" ^ ^- ^ff \0-^-. IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITEON fSI NO.S;?3f 72010 WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE226QFTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. PETITIONER Shagyfi Lal Uike, aged about 48 years, son of Shri Maan Singh Uike, occupatiQn - Asst. Teacher, Presently working as Head Master, Govt Primary School - Paddatola, Vikas Khanifl - Mohala, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhaftisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Tribal, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. '^Asst. Commissipnei-, Deptt 6f Tribal, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) 3. y 4.^ Joint Director (Treasury, A/c & Pension), Raipur (CG) Block Education Officer, Block - Mohala, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG). 01 PARTICULARS ABOUT THE F'ETITIONER As percause title. 02. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS As per cause title. 03 PAftTICUi-ARS OF ORDER AGAINST WHICH TME INSTANT PETITION IS BEING MAOE Being aggrieved by non-providihg benefit of two advance increments despite having B.T.I. ;Certificate obtained on his own cost prior to entering into service. Petitioner prefers this petifion on the following facts and grounds: T SV^V W ft-lii* ^n 3TT^T ai^iqb *<I»ICTI a>*ii<ft s'sr^i-'iid^, 0fl1'H'i<o, Tsicii'yy ^,^l£g)s^^^/.^. 31I^T 'q^T ( yii^'iyT) wnw ^ift'ti aii^i ^T^h'TO^ "WR^ ^f 'fel3t' ^^t^K ^? siRiH sn^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohaik Shrivastava. J. M.07-2Q10 Shri A. N. Bhakta, counsel fof) Ms, Sangeeta Mishra, Panel| advance copy. Heard. Leamed counsel appearing petitioner is entitled to benefit of tw|3 advance inorements on acoount of he having passed B.T. I. examinatkj cost. It is submitted that the issue in the oase of Asha Saxena (supra) another Writ Appeal No.87/2009,1 oonsideration of the case for grant| circular dated 21-09-1974 issued by] the petittoner. Lawyer 1br the State/respondents on for the petitioner submits that the in before his appointment at his own Involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the same ha^ been finally decided by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the case of Ash^ Saxena vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2009 ffll) MPJR (SC) S9. It is furth^r submitted that this Court has atso taken a similar view in his orper dated 06-02-2C09 passed in W.P.(S)No.6257of2008. Learnedctiunselfbrthepetitionerfurtherdraws attentbn ofthis Court to order datejj 29-04-2010 passed in Wrt Appeal No.124 of 2009, wherein relying upo|i the judgment ofthe Supreme Court |nd the order passed by this Court in direotions have been issued for of two advanoe increments as per the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification ofthe facts pleaded in th4 petition. Learnedcounset for the resbondents submits that case of the petitioner would atso be consfcfered c|n the same lines. »w'C\o?lsftags«lRR',.."?T-ri<Fira—FS/I47—2/2010—1,00,000. ^ T *1 ^ *n»«'ii»Hi<h ^sr "4i<ii<'i<T,.aTiiy'iR', rsi<ii<-iy.< _j^>:i'..E^..^..?±2^ mra> sn^d •WK ('^3^^) an^iw r<'li+ '^T^n^T'SRW Tumarw TOIIW ^fttl 311^1 -z In view of the statement njiade above, this petition js finally disposed of with a direction to the re^pondent authorities to consicter and decide the claim of the petitioner for| per circular dated 21-09-1974 issuejd by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verifioation ofthe facts pleaded —weeksfrom today. =bi<<I<'i<fl'i'wi^i 4 Fs'<3 <r^tsi< ^raifffffan^i grant of two advance increments as in the petition within a period of eight Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ^ i^ Judge