IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGASH ATBD.ASPUR W.P.fS) N0. nu^ /2010 PETITIONER Narayan Prasad Yadav S/o S/oRatan ram Yadav Aged about<8 52- years Asst.teacher Janpad Partamik shala bdqhar, Pffiichetra-uttar Patalgaon Distt-Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^p. .^^c <y^^' <SM> .,..'-'^'%.;" A-"' 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Education Depatment D.K.S. Bhawm, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Block Education officer Jashpur DisttJashpur (C.G.) 3. Distt.Education ofScer JashpurDisttJashpur (CUhattisgarh) €. Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension Jashpur Distt.Jashpm(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA ??•,v •Wi^^^^^^^g-^^-^ Y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLTR PETmONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1 146 of2010 Narayan Prasad Yadav. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. )5/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slnl Sattsh K. Aenihotri. J. Preseat: Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi-i Ajit Singh, Pane! Lawyer forthe State/respondeats. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 08th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioners subiiuts that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account ofthe facl that he had passed B.T.I. examination in the yeai' 1978-79 before his appointment i.e. on 27.6.1979, at his own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the preseiit petition is no longer res mtegra, as the sanie has been fmally decided by the Supreme Coiut inAsha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors. . 2. It is further submitted that this Court has also taken a suTiilar vievv in its order dated 6-2-2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008. Leamed counsel further submits that the order dated 29-4-2010 passedinW.A.No. 124 of2009, whereinrelyinguponthejudgtnent ofthe Suprane CovitmAsha Saxena (supra) and flie order passed by this Court m aiiotfaer W.A No. 87 of2009, directions have beeii issued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments- as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State ' 2009 ('iil) MPJR (SC) 59 fii t5^ ^ yp 7 of Madhya Pradesh, after verification of the facts pleaded in the petrtion. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that llie case of fhe petitioners would also be coiisidered on the sanie lines. 4. In view ofthe above, the petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claini offhe petitioners for erant of two advance increments, as per the circular dated 21.9.1974, issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh after verification oftlie facts pleaded m the petition witliin a period of 8 weeks from today. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit