t~1 Singt®B@n6h C.& (00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No^ Alii OF 2011. PETITIONER . ^ ^/11.... V^--S:r^^ p,esBrtesN^^^•w Bheekhurara Hirwani, Son of Baburam Hirwani, aged about 45 years, Lecturer, Govt. Middle School Pandarbhatta, Block Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. District Education Officer, District Education Office, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Tp::: ,^^.&^, -^^.^^&i^d^KWaBWBKSWK^te^.^.-^^^^^^^i^,^ ^J^t^4EL5^B^^L3f^^-^rss;^^^i sn WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^i I^V'I~^^^^~~F^-^~TT"^-»^SS^^!^^~:- HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPXJR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTIC®PRITINKER DIWAKBR W.P.(S).MO. 6366/2011 Bheekuram Hirwani versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Mirza HaSz Baeg, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chaadresh Shrivastava, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT^BTmONJJNDER AKTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOM OF IWDIA Counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat ffae petitioner is entifled to benefit of two advance uicrexaents on account of he having passed B.Ed. examiaatlon before his appointuient at his own cost. It is subniitted that fhe issue iavolved ia the present petition is no longer res integra and the same has been fiiiaUy decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ia the case ofAsha Saxeaa Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2009 (III)MPJR (SC) 59. It is further submitted that fhis Court has alsb taken a siruilar view ia its order dated 6.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6257/2008. Counsel for the petitioners further subiuits that the order dated 29.4.2010 passed ia Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, wherem relyin^ upon the judgiaent ofthe Suprenie Court in the case ofAsha Saxeua (supra) aad fhe order passed by this Coiirt ia aaother Writ Appeal No. 87/2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for graat of two advaace increments as per circiilar dated 21.9.1974 issved bv fhe State of Madhva Pradesh, after verification. of f' " . . */ the facts pleaded ia fhe petition. Coynsel for the State submits that case of the petitioner woiild alss be considered on fhe sam.e liiies. u In view of above, the petition is disposed of wifh a direction to the respondent aufhorities to decide the claua of the petitioner for graat of two advauce inciciaents as per circiilar dated 21.9.1974 issued by fhe State of Madhya Pradesh ater verification of fhe facts pleaded ia fhe petition withia a period offour nionfhs from today. It is luade clear fhat tbis Court has not expressed any opinion on nierits oftlie case aad fhe aufhority concemed would be at Uberty to decide the sauie stnctly ia accordance with law. Pr^t^akar 3ud&e