(L^- 1OTS7 •uiNi-3;l.t yt;K{VH < IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S) No. 9fLf / 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Reeta Sharma W/o Shri Yogesh / Sharma, Aged about 47 years, ^•hfc^--' Occupation - Lecturer,. Govt. Higher ^^]^^^$^'/7^t" Secondary School Anda Distt. Durg ,,,;;'^^>>1-" (CG). . VERSUS RESPONDENTS liMKSSa ^ii'fs?^ 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur (C.G.) 3.' District Education Officer District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. :- Same as above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS. Same as above in the cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS BEING MADE. That, petitioner is being filed the instant petitioner before this Hon'ble Court, not challenging any particular order, but the petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondents and seeking a direction to the respondents to grant two advance increments in account of B. Ed. Examination passed by the petitioner in the year 1986 in view ofthe circular dated 21.091974 and the order passed .'y'.*., '^ -•'^--^ "^. p^,,,.-^ 1 &• v-^'^s',. ® ^ijSE'--"^] jjj y s ^^•''^A^ y^ '\^' ^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETiTION (S) N0. 914 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Reeta Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar IVIishra, J. Present:- Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shrl Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 14th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination before entering into the sen/ice, at her own cost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petltioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court In Asha Ssxens v. State of M.P. 8. 0/s. as wel! as by thls Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothei2 and Gopesh Kumar Venna v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and anothe^. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may \be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the 12009(]!I)IVIPJR(SC)59 2 2006 (!1) MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 |3I^^^3^^ ^ >?pnS' umoS ^s^" ^v^^-w—^ •y) pssodsip si uoiiRed }UM 941 'A|6uipjooov •uoRBOipnfpe jo^ uoitjisd si.yi ui. seAiAjns DUIL|}OU 'jeuojtited siji joj euuesdde issunoo psujesi SLII o^ Buipjoooe 'BuioSajoi p MSIA u| •uoseiuassjdsj 941 p tdisosj jo 3»epaq^ LUOJI s>|3eM jnoi p poysa e uiyiiM '(ejdns) euexeg B4ss/ ui ynoo siusjdns 341 p suoisfoep aqt p wBi) 3i)l ui pue B\ LJIIM souepjoooe ui 'pspjoep pue psjspisuoo sq |S|M SLUBS 941 'uoitBiuesajdsj e sa)|eui jsuoitjiea S4» 'tuSAa 341 ui }BMI sijiuqns QWQ 341 jo^ Duyeadde jesunoo psujee-i •331AJ9S OIU1 SUUSIUS 9JOpq S8SU9dX8 UMO jsy uo sieoujjjso 'pg'g peji.nboe seq jsuoitftsd aw jayisym oise spej Q\Q jo uofteoyusA ot pefqns 'suoisioep ps^sejo^e p 6 •9 \ •'•N