C2) C¢Uhy/ r IN THE HON‘ BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. €‘701/ 2007 pETnmNER: /s%nt Usha cmkhankar, W/o Shri Bharat Chikhalikar, Aged V3 about 52 years, Post- Teacher, R/o _ ...... ?.$.‘°- ........ Prateek Bhavan, Civi! Line Lalbagh, Jagdaipur, / g m ..................... Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. ’Sfate of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Schooi Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, (C.G.) ‘ RE I M’ kGjW" ' ' 2. The District Education Officer HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5702 OF 2007 PETITIONER Smt. Usha Chikhalikar Versus ‘ State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. I Present :- Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 25‘“ day of January, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained B.Ed. degree on her own expenses in the year 1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on 15-1-1987. The petitioner was granted two advance increments for obtaining B.Ed. degree before entering into service by order dated 20-12-2006, which was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 20—7—2007 (Annexure — P/1). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of having passed B.Ed. examination before her appointment in the service. It is further submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as the same has been finally settled by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of MP. & Orsf. lt is next submitted that this Court has also taken a similar view in its order dated 6-2—2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 29-4-2010 passed in W.A.No.124 of 2009 wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court in another W.A.No.87 of 2009, directions have been issued 12009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59