*/' y^°M?^ (y'-^^^"~ ssngi C 5^2^ 7 (2) ^..-^^•^' sW" ^..-" y'^-^' ; ff^".. ....... ^ . --.. Fbre Hon'ble High Court ofChhattisaarhat BilasDur Writ Petifion(Sl No.3^/2008 PETITIONERS J^ ^"^^ ^;^ il^ 1 S.H/Ka^i, < S ^" S.K. VERMA.ADV. 1009 / 21)03 1. MangalDas Banjare S/o Shri Govind Das^ Aged about 36 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. PrimarySchool,Gotatola, Block-Chhuriya, Distt.-Rajnandgaon(C.G.) 2. Dwarika Prasad Kosare S/oShriSamaylal Kosare Aged about 38 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt.PrimarySchool, Parewadih, Block-Chhuriya, Distt.-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ^" • ' . 1. StateGovt. ofChhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Education &Tribal Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ii. .11'- ' 2. AssistantCommissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS (.^^"-^t HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Sinflie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Manindra Wlohan Sh WRiT PETITiON (S'i N0.3883/2008 Mangai Das Banjare & another SETiTs fss&.SEOS ^%3^iF& ?^6/th5^S?^7"a S^ri^^ Kcor'uNUtRi! a Versus State Govt. of Chhattisgam & others WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTiGLE 228 OF Tn= CONSrTyTLQNuF INULA f= „ . J2E-.?-! :'Sn?nL-f^f X/^??y.3S r-"E E^^£ssl 'f''^?' fl'iS ?^Gfifi/^!r?^r^ <h?itii s.'wiiirv&tiii. v<?iiiiCij wVui i^^i iVi U fc. ]]>/^itfctVt i^?i <», Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Adv'ocate Generai aiong with Shri Satish Guota, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL >th (Passed on 29" June, 2010) neara. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners who were Assistant Teachers, passed BTI exarninatiori at their own costs and expense before entry intoservice and therefore they are sntitied to grant of 2 advance increments on the basis of circuiar dated 21/09/1974 Issued by t'ne State Government. It is submitteu that the controversy invoived in the present petition is covered by the judgrnent of Supreme Court in the uase of Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & others, 2009 ili iviF'JR (oupreme Court) page 59 and order dated 4/3/2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.87/08 and aiso order dated 29/04/2010 passed in VtfritAppeai No.124/09. It is submitted that in the aToresald decision, it has been heid that those vif'ho haveobtained B.Ed/'BTi degree at their own expense before entry into service, they are entiued to two auvance incrernents. i. Learnea counsei Tor tne responaenis suDmiis mai ine case OT ine petitioner wiil be considered in accordance with the aforesaid orders anu ''-^. •i;, necsssary orders wouid be passed after due veriilcation of the facts pleaded in the petition on satisfaction that the petition is covered bythe aforesaid decision. 3. In view of the above statements, thls petltion is finaily uisposed ofi wlfh the direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitiorfer's ciaim for grant of two advance incrernents in the tight of juuyment of ths Supreme Court in the case Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & others, 2009 i II MPJR (Supreme Court) page 59 and order dated 4/3/2010 passed in vvrit Appeal No.87/09 and also -\order dated 29/Q4/2010 passed in 'vVrit Appeai No.124/09. In case, It is found that the c-ases of the petitioners are identicai, the benefit of iwo advance incrementsshail be extended to the petitioners. 4. Vvith the afufesaiu observations, the petitlon is finaliy dlsposeu 011. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ?aK Rla