r\ \^ ^ irt l~i " o' o C7 a'5 c. '< ^;n /ft ''• fl^, ';rt. '^ ^^N.A, v-u''^<^ "'••. ''^>^ e 'o \ .3? OT -g 6i ^A^I -+ o "5 0" CS f"^. i~a. --h -+> ~I -+ "^t' ^s •-S- o 0~3 yi&i o3 ^?^/ ^6'^ \ ^ \ ' °s 3-;• -fc Q ~-c> .£ -i f^ O ('' -+< o ^ 3 '^./»:'/& "s ~s -f- if*tn^ •< ^ o- o ^ -n o"s <Cl (O -I «^- 3- s3- & °! n 6 •p c^ -s 10 ? '_' ± 5: s- 7 .1' li. ~-"' 2. t5 3- o -t- •< 3s. K .-+ ._ O- ;<~^ l^ r-*, |»A T^ n_ 6 m 3 C <s^ £SK^,; tH-IK;-. SS^'stsi ?w taA" ^ '/» HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JU8TICE PRITIHKER DIWAKER PBTITIONER W.P.jSl.NO. 6170/2011 Jeevan Siagh Markam versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Axnit Kuniar Sharma, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Chaadresh Shrivastava, P.L. for fhe State. WMTPETITIQNUNDERARTICLE^aeOILTHECONSTITUnON OF INDIA OSDER (17.10.2011) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitied to benefit of two advance iucrements on account of he haviag passed B.T.I. exatniaation before his appointment at his own cost It is subinitted that the issue iavolved in the present petition is no longer res integra aud the same has been finaUy decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in fhe case of Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. 85 Ors. 2009 (III)MPJR (SC) 59. It is further subiuitted fhat this Court has also taken a smular view m its order dated 6.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6257/2008. Counsel for ftie petitioners fiirther submits that the order dated 29.4.2010 passed iu Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, wherein relying upon the judgnient offhe Suprerae Court in fhe case ofAsto Saxena (supra) and fhe order passed by fhis Court ia another Writ Appeal No. 87/2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for graat of two advance increinents as per circiilar dated 21.9,1974 issued by fhe State of Madhya Pradesh, after veriflcation of tlie facts pleaded in the petition. Counsel for fhe State submits fhat case of the petitioner would also be considered on ttie saiae lines. In view of above, the petition is disposed ofwith a directiou to the respondent authorities to decide fhe claiin of the petitioner for grant of two advance iacrements as per cireiilar dated 21.9.1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh afiter verification of the facts pleaded ia fhe petition wifhia a period offour nionths fi?oia today. It is inade clear fhat fhis Court has not expressed any opinion on. merits of the case and the aufhority conceraed would be at Uberty to decide the sauie strictly ia accordaace wifti law. Sd/- p