1-— •,€/ ^s 1-1 ^—1 ^ ^ ~Q a) "1~ VI 0£ •I- t- 5 a' 0 z +- t- t a o -6 "t" & y' -& ^ 3 t-a t4 (- s- +- u >4- •!- o v-l Q-l io' 01 s- s- ai a ^**^ i— £- !- 0 •I- +~ £ •I-£-sa- a)o a) !L- s~ m Q < ^•T -£ u o u ''A -I*«. ^•^ >. '-y dl^rf-fl s- &- s» 5 ?~i. •^' s.>- o +•: O M o u -^ Hl U- ZlF^ a^'; S'K i \\ "••:• ;~ Vi HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISG&RH AT BILASPUR SB LHON'BLBM^ JUSTICB^PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.(Sl.NO. 6169/2011 Shyam Lal Sidar versus State ofC.G, & Others Shri Ainit Kumar Sharma, counsel for tlie petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shriyastava, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER Connsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat fhe petitioner is eutiUed to beuefit of two advaiice iucreiaents on account of he having passed B.T.I. examiaation before his appomtment at his own cost. It is submitted fhat tbe issue involved iu fhe present petition is uo longer res integra and fhe same has been fiaaUy decided by fhe HonTile Supreme Court in fhe case ofAsha Saxena Vs. State ofM.P.& Ors. 2009 (IIIJMPJR (SC) 59. It is fixrfher subnutted fhat fhis Court has also taken a sirmlar view m its order dated 6.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6257/2008. Counsel for the petitioners farther submits tbat the order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, wherein relym^ upon fhejudginent ofthe Supreine Court in. the case ofAsSia Saxena (supra) and ffae order passed by fhis Court ia aaother Writ Appeal No. 87/2009, directions have been issued for consideration of fhe case for grant of two advaace increinents as per circular dated 21.9.1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification of fhe facts pleaded iu the petition. Counscl for ftie State subnuts that case of the petitioner would also be considered on fhe sauie luies. 1 nri In view of above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claiin of the petitioner for graut of two advance iiicreiaents as per circiilar dated 21.9.1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh after verification of fhe facts pleaded in. fhe petition wifhin a penod offour inonfhs firoin today. It is inade clear fhat this Court has not. expressed any opiaion on inerits of the case aiid tbe aufhority concenied woiild be at Uberty to decide the same strictlv ia accordance with law. ____- Sd/- pritinker Judge