WW w Kgmmwwoo mm (Wu) WWW WWW $Wm B : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Moha 05-08-2010 Shri A. N. Bhakta, counsel for he petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panei L wyer for the State/respondents on advance copy. Heard. Learned counse! appearing or the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of tw advance increments on account of she having passed B. Ed. examinatio before her appointment at her own cost. It is submitted that the issue i votved in the present petition is no ionger res integra and the same has been finaiiy decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashe Saxena vs. State of MP. & Ors., 2009 {III} MPJR (SC) 59. It is furthe submitted that this Court has aiso taken a similar View in his o dated 06-02-2009 passed in W.P.(S)No.6257 of 2008. Learned c unset for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court to order date 29-04-2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.124 of 2009, wherein relying Upo the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) a dthe order passed by this Court in another Writ Appeal No.87/2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for grant f two advance increments as per circular dated 21-09-1974 issued by he State of Madhya gradesh, aiteyrv verification of the facts pleaded in the etition. Learned counsel for the res ondents submits that case of the petitioner would also be considered o the same lines. S n hrivastava S J. r r mwwwwwwm anewm (W) m WW WWW i123m mmmm (‘ 'LK a; aimm w 31mm $290 In view of the statement made above, this petition is ftnalty disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments as per circular dated 21-09—1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesn, after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition within a period of eight weeks from today. Sd/ i Manindra Mohan Shrivastava" E Judge .... . I Tumane r W $361: ggnnz-rzr, .h‘mzeria ~»F5/1 47*2/20 i 0 -1 ,oc,oao.