Q; @ S.B. lService Matteg IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARm WRIT PETITION (S) N05§Ll9 /201 1. /, PETITIONER: Khusiram Sahu, son of Anand Ram Sahu, aged about 55 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, residence of Village Naya Kharwe, Post Naya Kharwe, Tahsil Kasdole, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VCI‘SuS /‘ a 1A. ' State ,of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. was 2. District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. MAJ, / 7’ 3. Block Education Officer, ghdaigarha' District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. s? 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r?“ HIGH COURT ¢F CHHATTISGARH AT B!I.A$PUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTIGE PRITINKER DIWAKER W‘P.(S).N0. 5549]201 1 PETITIONER Kjnmiram Sahu VEI'S‘uS State of C.G. 8s Othas Shri K.P.Sahu, counsel for the pemn'aner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CORS'H'I‘UTION OF INDIA f'// ORDER (19.09.201 1) Counsel for the petitioner submitq that the petin'onar is entitled to benem of two advance incmments on account of- he having passed B.T.I, examination in the year 1978 before his appointment at his own cost. It ‘is submitted that the issue involved in the prosent petition is no longer res integra and the same has been nnally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case‘of Ashe Sexena Vs. state of M.P. a an. 2009 (1113mm (so) 59. It is further submitted that this Court has also taken a simila View in its order dated 6.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6257/2008. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Writ Appeal NO. 124/2009, wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha menu (supra) and the order passed by this Court in another Writ Appeal No. 87/2009, directions have been issued for oons'xieration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per circular dated 21 9 1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh aher vermcahon of ' the facts pleaded 1h the petition Counsel for the State submits that case of the petitioner would also be cons1dered on the same lines r rrwr — «a ,_ @ In View of above, the petition is disposed of with a dimeh‘on to the respondent authdritics to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance Increments as per c1rcular dated 21 9 1974 lssued by the State of Madhya Pradesh aiter venncation of the ken pleaded 1n the petmon Within a penod offour months mm today It 1s made clear that the Court has not expressed any opmmn on ments of the case and the authonty concerned would be at hbm‘ty to decxde the same smctly m accordance w1th law. Sdl— Pritinker Diwakar Judge