tR SIWLt asM( -. J^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT^>F CHH^rTjSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. <2>5$C> /2010 -^ PETITIONER '-•-.^^1 ^•^ ^-;v^ s-^'^ '•-sJ^ fc.y' RESPONDENTS Smt. Pramila Dongre (Before marriage Pramila Sakheria) W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Dongre aged about 50 years, Assistant Teacher Primary School Charoda, Block-Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : I. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Durg, Distt,- Durg (C.G.) j S.B^i^iiili) » ^^% ^il'ra^ 3. Block Education Officer Patan, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .^&AJE^EJ^TTT A^a<a_^^i3-saxjEa^-»nnn»*»uL—-». T3> 3^ •<ii<fici<<, yTfl'a'is, [qciK-iy ^__ JLrPCl) f-h-IZ^ °/! ° ^^..^.<P.^...,..........^..^....y./^^QQ 3tl^t"q^? (^pfp^I) an^T qii l^.fic), ?pnsir^['gnw ?W1W ?!{W SI^I SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mpyan Shrivastava^ J. 6.7.2010 Shri Ajay SIuivastava, Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. advance copy. Heard. Leamed counsel for fhe ^ couilisel for fhe petitioner. A]dvocate for the State/respondents, on entitled to benefit of two advaud *1^<t^i 's^TH^f ^' fe^ T^R^K •^atRnsn^T etttioner subinits that the petitioner was appoiated as Assistaat Teaqher in the year 1981 aad she joined her duties as Assisteat Teachei on 7.12.1981. It is submltted fh.at before enfay i&to service, petitlo4er obtaiued Bal Sevika TraiTiing {rom. Madhya Pradesh Bal Kalyau Par|ishad aad fberefore, petitioner is also increments in view of Circular dated 13.9.1974 (Annexure P-3). Leanied counsel for fhe jpetitioner further submits that the judgment of fhe Supreine Court jn fhe case of Asha Saxeaa Vs. State of M.P. SB Ors. 12009 (SI) MPJS (SC) 59] and orderS passed by this Court ia fhe case of Yashwai^t Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporatton, Durg & another [^006 (2) MPJR-CG 96] & in fhe case of SaUl Kant Stn^i Vs. State o^ Chhattisgarh and others [W.P. (S) No. 6357/08), whereia benefit of two advance increments has been granted on. the basis that B.Ed. degree was obtained, is also applicable to fhe case of the petitiouer, as flie Circulars sought to extend benefit •? ^sr ^i<)ici<), ®Ti]y'i<o,f^rrey sn^riTa^ (l<:ilda<'i?) "^II^T TWT 3VKV ailiqi iSWitK •flfta sii^r z- obtainlsd not oiity to those wbo had ftiose who obtamed Bal SSvika TrA B.Ed./B.T.l. Traming, but also to tjiimng Uke the petitioner. On fhe ofher haad, subsjiK respondents-State is that this aay approach to fhe State GOVC] would make representation, fhe ^ merits and in accordance wifh lawl '*l<<f<'l<i1-f ifnwt. ^ fyA <i^i«;!< 'Efr affgii sn^r iKsion of learaed cozmsel for fhe has been ffled vrithout maMag nent He prays that if fhe petitioner ame wiB be considered on its own pe^ition ;ra|mi In this view of fhe matter, petition at fhis stage. It would be| ttie State Govenunent by inakmg parity of treatment on fhe basa such representation is caade, resjpondents sball decide fhe sam.e ia accordance with law. j With fhe aforesaid observatiAns, the petition stands disposed ofF, il am not iucUned to entertain this open for fhe petitkmer to approach ^ppropriate representation, clainung bf orders referred to above. In case 'Prsaees. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge