é ckwodb/ ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (s1 No. §9G5 OF 2011. PETITIONER /Ajay Kumar Ranade, Son of Bhav Singh Ranade, aged about 45 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Godhikala, Block Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, ‘ ‘ ' F~ _ _ 965.131“. mam .5“. v/WlRalpur (C' G') , M , V9R“o kedw S“%.§1-. ~ ........."' 2. District Education Officer, w . District Education Office Durg, District Durg (C. G.) 3. Additional District Education Officer, Education District Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) «x 4. Block Education Officer, Block Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) / J X1 WRIT :, 9 @ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E 3L 3a WW, amrrag, W urqmw Cn w 1.5... 0Q") av\r §6% H 1-H 200 311%?! W (wig-am Learned counsel appeari g for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitied to benefit of o advance increments on account of he having pasged B. Ed. examinatio before 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 inally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxe a vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2009 (ill) MPJR (SC) 59. It is further sub itted that this Court has also taken a similar view in his order dated 0 -02—2009 passed in W.P.(S)No.6257 of 2008. Learned counsel for the etitioner further draws attention of this Court to order dated 29-04-2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.124 of 2009, wherein relying upon the judgme t of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) and the or er passed by this Court in another Writ Appeal No.87/2009, directions h e been issued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per circular dated 21-09-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that now the State Government had issued a circular on 05-01-2011 and the case of the petitioner would be examined in the light of the decision of the State Government. T. mm Hfza ané‘a mfmTvw um??? ‘Bf w TW $ m 311%?! rivasiavta-«l 30-09-201 1 Shri Mirza Hafeez Baig, co nse! for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, De uty Government Advocate for the State/respondents on advance co yr Heard. Xl-HC 78 mmm 1' 'cmwm Tumane @g 3E1 WW, @mn—g', W qmaTWW ?{:i 2 00 a§mnWE($%§wg) ’ T mm 1m mam — Z WW 'qTqa-ff 1§ wrm ~—-—l1°r—view-e=f-H%ee%atemeat— overthis—petitwnmnallydisposed é? aif‘a'n of with a direction to the responde t authorities to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments in view of the f‘jila‘Wiai‘d‘ downéS also in view of ircuiar, which has been issued by the U W ‘ V on 05-01-2011, after verification of the facts pleaded in *the‘ petitiOniwithin a period of thr e months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ”sat Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge / t