“g’f‘”% $§§x§$§§ i “w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s.) NoHé 7’ /2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. / / L.R. Sahu S/o Shri Deen Dayal Sahu, Aged about 56 years, Occupation Principal at Government Higher Secondary School Kutra, Block Navagarh, District—Janj gir- Champa (C . G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block Navagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETHION (S) Na. 467 af 20} 1 WRIT PETI’HON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'HON OF INDIA SB: Han’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Presen: s. uspa wve, vocae or he pettoner. . Shri Sushi] Dubey, Govcmmsnt Advocate for tha State/respondents‘ ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 27m day of January, 2011) Leamed coumel appearing for the petitioner submits that the pctiticner is entitled to beneiit oftwo advance increments on account oftho fact that the petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination before his appointment, at his own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the same has been finally settled by the Supreme Court inAsIm Saxena v. State ofM.P. 0% Ors. 1. It is further 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 WIA.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.87/2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for grant oftwo advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State of Madhya PradeslL atter verification of the facts pleaded in the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the ‘ case of the petitioner would also be considered on the same lines. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State ofMadhya Pradesh after verification of the facts, pleaded in the petition, within a period (of 8 weeks &om today. M, ,,,r../"/“é Sd/— 1 2009 (m) MPJR (so) 59 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t M Ph Didi Adt f t ii PETITIONER : L.R.Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others.