CA? 6w» BMfyW BEFORE THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR .P. s No. Q1“ w ) / PETITIONERS : 1. U’r’ram Lal Dewangan, S/o Bam‘ru Ram Dewangan, aged abouT 53 year‘s, working as Assistan’r Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Ko’riyadih, Tahsil and Blockv Kasdol, DisTT. Raipur' (C.G.) g Chelak, aged abou'r 53 year‘s, working as Assistant Teacher, Gavf. H.S.C.C. Girodpur‘i, Tahsil and Block Kasdol, DisT’r. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Pancharam PaTel, S/o Laxman PaTel, aged abouT 55 years, Occu.— Headmasfer, Primary Schoo, Girodpurl, Block Kasdol, DisTT. Raipur (C.G.) 2 Roop Ram Chelak, 'S/o Bandhu Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.“ STa‘re of Chha‘Hisgorh Through- The Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, D.K.5. Bhawan Roipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA yon/me ‘* will GEE H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.684 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Uttam Lal Dewangan & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :u Shri D.R, Mini, Advocate forthe petitioners. Judge 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 4' day of February, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners subnjits that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of having passed B.T.l. examination before their appointment at their own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as the same has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors,1. 3. It is further submitted that this Court has also taken a similar view in its order dated 6-2-2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 29—4-2010 passed in W.A.No.124 of 2009 wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court in another W.A.No.87 of 2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case of the‘ petitioners would also be considered on the same lines, 5. ln view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioners for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21~9—1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition within a period of 8 weeks from today. , Sd/-' I Satish K. Agnihotri