? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No.^S^ / OF 2010. PETITIONER ^^s ^•y^-v^- ^'^ ' ^'"A® '•s'wu ^. Smt. Mary Eligabeth Lal, W/o. R. K. Lal, aged about 49 years, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Bacheli, Block Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) •^'. 3. Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Bacheli,Block Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) ^. V" 4. Treasury Officer, Treasuiy Account and Pension, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ H!GH COURT OF CHHAFTISGARH : BILASPUR Gowri PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7591 OF 2010 Smt. Mary Eligabeth Lal Versus State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others 2. (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER_(ORAL) (Passed on this 3rd day of January, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of she having passed B.Ed. examination before her appointment at her own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the preseht petition is no longer i-es integra and the same has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors.\ 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 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.87/2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the State 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 of Madhya Pradesh after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition within a period of 8 'A'eeks from today. 3. 4. Sd/- , _ s^^ASMhot" Judge 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59