a-'^ • (oo PAGE '9- ^ |f^/l...--v^ ^Js0^ •^%s-^ ^•••''..^t w ff: A®A"" P. (Sj No. 5~^-9 /2011 tainuram Banjare S/o (late) Bhururam Banjare, aged about 54 years, presently posted as Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Middle School, Kaudiya, block & tehsil Dhabra, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 1. Sfate of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Departruent of School Education , Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /-2. District Education Officer Janjgir district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. District Treasury Officer, Treasury Acconut and Pension, Janjgir district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) F- ,^^- i\ '"1*?^ 3li^I^l1^)W ^>STT 3TT^?T ^;*ibti ^ST •^WM<i, SST)l<H'l(o, fsRTCP^: i^p(&')v^. s%^^n sn^i 'VSPK ('yi^'CT) wnwaftaan^i q>i'(t<i<ilf iii>R?f <f fea ^{gngi< ^raffiitTan^?! 'SB : Hon'ble Shri IVIanindra n/lohah Snnvastava. J.— 30.09-201-• Shri Mahendra Dubey, coun^el for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, Panel Law^erfor the State. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advancej increments on account of he having passed B.Ed. examination before appointrpent at his own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petitijsn is no longer res integra and the same has been finally decided by the Hon'bli vs. State ofM.P. & Ors., 2009 (lll^ Court has atso taken a similar vj ^ Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena No.87/2009, directions have been MPJR (SC) S9. it is further submitted that this iw in his order dated 06-02-2009 passed in Vtf.P.(S)No.6257 of 2008. Leari(ed counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court to order dat^d 29-04-2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.124 of 2009, wherein relying upon the jud^ment or the Supreme Court in the case of fl^ha Saxena (supra) and the order p|assed by this Court in another Writ Appeai ssued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per citcular dated 21-09-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification (afthe facts pieaded in the petition. Learned counsel for the| Government had issued a circular) respondents submits friat now the State on 05-01-2011 and the case of the petitioner would be examined in the lightof ttje decision ofthe State Government. In view of the statement majJe above, this petition is flnally disposed of with a direction to the respondent autllorities to consider and decide the claim of the pet'rtioner for grant of two advancejincrements in view of the iaw iaid down as also J.TIWTOIS—V<::ilV—2/2ill|—I,50,000. -T ^nf'^l^ld^, siTil^-iKo, [sldiy^'i. . W )°Cs')^o.^6l/|/ ^^ ...........^......^................,...........^ ^QQ SITi^T T^?T ('icl(3°l't?) 3n^i'wl?;ira? (CTan^ignN' •^eepti TRiiWHfTOan^r 2011, after verification of the facts months from the date of receipt of a •+l*lii'l<i!-f 'qwif if 'fB-S'l <F>iyil. ^ajfansn^TT in view of circular, which has beeji issuea oy me tttaie GovSrriftiertt On 05-01- pleaded in the petition within a period of three copyofthisorder. SdA • ' Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge