IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S) No. /? 9? / 204®-^ov\ PETITIONER Smt. Indra Singh W/o Shri Om Prakash Singh, Aged about 50 years, Occupation - Lecturer, Govt. Hir. Sec. School Kurud Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS >• 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. pwo——^Wr^^^'n Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) preaentedb^S^.'n^~}-}^^' ~'"""'" Dated..........l^.(....?..H.2.aA^. ^^ Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur (C.G.) ^3. District Education Officer District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ -%>.•-XI-HC-22 sn^i'qir R-lidi 311^ shHi'-+i ^(Ra ^^ 'S^I -^W\V\li, »Tll'M'16, ('ICII'My an^r ^ra^ ..IA>£...&I..^...-^I^ HtlCTI sh*<ich'"" •••••••'—•—•••—•-••^F^ '200 'fN^si' ^^.^. . 1 TO^^,^^T SB: Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohari Shrivastava. J. 10-01-2011 Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel for t|ie petittoner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer <or the State/respondents. Heard. Leamed counsel appearing fo' the petitioner submHs Uiat the petltioner is entiUed to beneflt of two advanc^ increments on account of she having passed B.Ed examination before ^er appointment at her own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved i| integra and Uie same has been finallt 1 the present petition is no longer ras ^ decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena vs. Ststte ofM.P. & Ore.. 2009 ffW MPJR (SC) 59. It is furUier submitted that this Court has also taken a amilar view in its order dated 06-02-2009 passed in W<.P.(S)No.6257 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner ftirther draws attention of thls Court to order dated 29-04-2010 passed in Writ Appeal h|o.124 of 2009, wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vr^e case of Asha Saxena (supra) and ttie order passed by this Court in anot^ier Writ Appeal No.87/2009, directfons have been issued for considerationj of the case for grant of two adsrance incremente as percireular datpd 21- Pradesh, after veriflcation ofthefae^ 09-1974 issued by the State of Madhya pleaded in the petition. Leamed counsel for the respo^dents submits that case of the petitioner would also be considered on the same lines. In view ofthe statement madeiabove, this petiUon is fmally dteposed off with a directlon to fte respondent authoritles to consider and decide the claim ir ::1 ^[f '••"^I^HC-12 --..,'° ^^ -ill^ld^, s}T)ly'ls, ("ifll'Hy lira?IT chlicb 3Tr^?T 1T3^ ...l^..&)....1^..:...^8/^ "Wl' [ct*<{S?" SlI^TqiI ft-<i+ an^r E*t^iicn •yftd DBepli sn^i ^giw ^if?g -^ of ttie petitioner for grant of two ad^ 21-09-1974 issued by the State of ^ facts pleaded in the petition within a 1/ance increments as per circular dated fadhya Pradesh, atter verificaton of the FJeriod of eight weeks from today. Sdi'- Maiundra Mohari Shrivastava Judge eM^trl^l'l'Hra^T'^ f€t<Ll ^^K ^T 3!P<PT 311^1 r^