\^^°-^^ ^•^^y-a f.V""~ ^-•<' h$^&':'' ,..\ A^^^° } (^^ ^ffff^_ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .'\Q. ^" WRIT PETITION fSl N0, '^ OF 2010 PETITIONERS RESPON^ENTS / Smt. Vatsala Bali, W/o Shri Shiv Shakti Bali, Aged about 53 years, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Ring Raod No.2 , Tota Badi, Behind St. Francis School, Bilaspur, C.G. VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Director, . Public Instruction, Raipur, C.G. 3. District Education Officer, District- Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. sn^s^i l<;-<i?ii sn^i 5M+li=b ^fgtT 'S^ 'fwwi, axil'M'is, (»«*ii'yy 3n^?r ira^? ^•.O^l^-^^Tt^ -^ Iw IIKMI *><ra» fN^ST' 311^1 ?^TW: ^lfel r»w? IE? _T??'ieTtt<wti? Shri Satyendra Sahu, cou: Sbri Ajit Singti, P.L. for thi Counsel for fhe petitioner entitled to benefit of two advanci haviug passed B.Ed. examiaatioi own cost. !t is subinitted that fl4( petition is no loager res integra decided by fh.e Hon.'ble Supren^ Saxeaa Vs. Sfcate of KE.P. 85 Orsj It is further submitted fh.j similar view ia its order 6257/2008. Counsel for the petif order dated 29.4.2010 passed whereia relying upon the judgra^ case ofAsha Swiena (supra) aa4 io. aaother Writ AppeaS No. 8[ issued for consideration of tfae lacreinents as per circuiar datecf of Madhya Pradesh, after verific^ petition.. qiiitiaili iWRff 4 fezt Tf^nere ^? sipgif si]^( [sel for the petitioner. IState. subiuits that the petitioner is increm.ents on accouiit of she before her appoiatment at her e issue involved .ia the preseat and tlt.e same has been fiiiaUv Court in the case of Asha it this Court has also taken a i.2.2009 passed ia W.P.(S) No. ioners further subauts fhat ttie Writ Appeal N0. 124/2009, nt offtie Supreme Court in tbe fhe order passed by this Court / 2009, directions have been 'ase for grant of Iwo advance 21.9.1974 issiied bv the State .uon of fhe facts pleaded in the sut^inits that case of tjie petitioner iasie Unes. Counsel for the State woiild also be considered. on ftie I.n view of above, fhe getition is disposed bf directipnjB tlie^respondent autllorities to decide the ciaiin ofthe [''n'^ 'ef^i "-"" ^ XI-HC-22 'ssi '•qraRpI, «>TlltiJI(»',(««'ii'Liy WHwrw-n^i 3Tlt?T "tRra7 ....w...e-.ui.^3^^ fa-^ET' 3]I^!(^T tewsii^r ^iHf^ ^lf^T an^r're'iw'BfN petitioner for graiit of two advarjce increxnents as per cirRular dated.21.9.1974 issued bv the ^ta.ts o{ Madhva Rradesh afier verifica.tion oftbe facts pleaded idj eight weeks froia todav. It is inade clear fbat tbis opinion on merits of fhe case would be at liberty to decide fh| wifh law. <=h)^(n^i ^P^^ 'fe^st 'd^^-eR ^; aifigir sn^r £hepetition wifnin a period of Court has not expressed any and fhe authoritv concemed s saine stricUv ia accordaace Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge