'fSSS'i'^-SK'S. ^^^^'s^ ^^^^•|si'^:^i%^^ :^£j^i-^.i^,;i..yt-yjs.ui-:-i.tN —v-r--^Ti-l- '-. ^ s' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. fS) No. cbN /-2fl4fi- 2S3 \\ PETITIONER : / Smt. Bharti Shukla W/o Shri Santosh a ...•••' ^ Kumar Shukla, Aged about 50 years, h.?C'~C..--'"' ./ Occupation - Assistant Teacher, Govt. c.<^.^' ^—"'-"•—• ^ .—"."..-.—...-.^, .'..•<;::^.;.-,'"^\-''' Primary School Junwani Bhilai Distt. ,„*'' ^J^.^ / \***' ^'t~^\v3--" ^yy 'ysk/ ^ RESPONDENTS Durg (CG). VERSUS : ^1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^2. JointDirector, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur (C.G.) / 3. District Education Officer District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA .iXI-HC-22 /2_' ail^'I'^I f<-li.<* Sfl^I S*i^ich ^e^ ^ 'TST -t|i'4|trl'i<, ^fll^'is. fai'li'My 31T^?T_TI=ra? ..U.£.6)..!^..:...ii/u W<1\ Vhwefi 200 fN^g' an^i's^giw ^iter SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moh*n Shrivastaya, J. 10-01-2011 Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel foj Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyt Heard. Learnedcounsel appearingl is entitled to benefit of two advat passed B.Ed examination before) submitted that the issue involved the petitioner. r for the Stat^respondents. |for the petitiener submits that the petitioner |ice increments on account of she-having her appointment at her own cost. It is in the present petiUon ts no longer tes integra and ttie same has been fin^lly decided bythe Hon'ye Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena vs. State ofM.P.& Ore.. 2008 fill) MPJR (SCY 59. It is further submitted that tl1 order dated 06-02-2009 passed in for the petitioner further draws 29-04-2010 passed in Wrtt Appeal increments as per circular dated t would also be considered on the s in view of the statement ma with a direction to the respondent t:tit^<fli TTF^y ^ 'f^rct <^i^i< ^! SlPaH 311^1 is Court has also taken a similar view in its W.P.(S)No.6257 of 2008. Learned counsei attention of this Court to order (teted No.124 of 2QSQ, wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court ir^the case of Asha Saxena {supra) and the order passed by this Court in aitother Writ Appeai No.87QtU9, directions have been issued for considerati|on of the case for grant ef two advance 1-W-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification ofthe fa|rts pteaded in the petition. Learned counsel for the resi|>ondents submits that case of the petiUoner me iines. e above, this petiBon is finalty disposed off uthorities to consider and decide the ciaim [Tit3?fnTa •;u^^^B'' '^^BsS)*'i'x>%%%S6%:s%8'SiiJii&^3. •^. -\ XI-HC-22 ^T -S-Sf ^|A||d<<, dTily'lti. fafll'My 3TT^T •q?ra? £)^,Sf/11 •11>«11<h»1iq» .^.f)...G.). 200 ^S^T' 311^1 ^T ft-tji* sn^CT shflt^'afidl Deepu 311^1 ^iITWH^T 2?' of the peUtioner for grant of two a<j 21-09-1974 issued by the State of facts pleaded in the petition within a cM*ll<'1<IVT1 'RFT^f ^ I^St •<:f^l^K ^;3lP(R 311^1 jvance increments as per cireular dated padhya Pradesh, after verifleation of tiie t»eriodof eight weeks from tods^. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^^ ^^St