s.B. (Service Matter) 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR QIHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (s) No. ffft' /201 1. /" PETITIONER: Sitaram Dadsena, son of Kartik Ram Dadsena, aged about 53 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, residence of village Purgoan, Police Station Bhilaigarh, Tahsil Bhilaigarh, 1 District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. V6I‘SHS Respondents 17/ State of Chhattisgarh, Through A Secretary Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /. 2. District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh; 3. Block Education Officer, Bhilaigarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. K 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILARPIR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER D!WAKER W.P.[8).NO. 5550/201 1 Sitaxam Dadsema VEI‘SIIS RESPONDENN 'State of (LG. 8r. Others PETITIONER Shn' K.P.Sahu, counsci for the peu'u'oner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COHMI‘I‘UTION OF INDIA ORDER (19.09201 1) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is en§t1ed to benefit of two advance incmments on account of he having passed B.T.I. examinau'on in the year 1979 before his appointment at his own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the same has been Many decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash; Banana Vs. state of M.P. & 01's. 2009 uInMPJR (3C) 59. It is further submitted that this Court has also taken a similar view in its order dated 6.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6257/2008. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the cider dated 29.4.2010 passed in Writ Appeal NO. 124/2009, whemin relying upon the judgnent of the Supleme Court in the case of Ashe Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court in another Writ Appeal No. 87/ 2009, dimctions have been issued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per circular dated 21.9. 1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verincation of the facts‘pleaded in the petition. l Counsel for the State submits that case of the petitioner would also be consideted on the same lines. In view of above, the petition is dispbsed of with a dilecu'on to the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant-of two advance increments as per circular dated 21.9.1974 issued Ey the State of Madhya Pradesh after vermcation of the facts pleadeti in the petition Within a period oft‘our months n‘om today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on mem‘ts of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. ,H_H Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge