t.^ A!.^'^«- ^.ss^^^^x ^^^": 'ya. ^tEBENCH stiBS KSsS. (L^ /^0^^ Inthe Hon'bleHiqh CourtofChhattishaarhatBilasDur (C.G.) W.P.tSyNo. "3 9^(5 2010 Petitioner ResDondents Smt. Sashi Sahu, aged 47 years, W/o Shri Gangadhar Sahu, Upper DivisionTeacher, Govt. MiddleSchoot.Chhuiya, Block Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Versus y1., State Governmentof Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Schoot Education' Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G. 2; DistrictEdueationOfficer.Korba 3. Block Education Officer, Chhuiya DistrictKorba (C.G.) Wrjt Retition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ihdia for jssye of writ of Mandamus/direction or anv other aB&roeriate^writ. ^ y ttac!£i.5Sys.j^...^-—:i_'" XI-HC—78 311^(1 W^tN? ?«IT3n^TWTOi TST -4i<iid'4, 8>ti)'«H'i6, R<(ytiy^< ^_VJ^.(^No.^^/<0. *(l*<Wltb*(ieb '"""'"' "'jf'" "^200 SIJ^ 'q'W (1clfj«l<{tT) ^nwdfia sii^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mo 26-07^010 Shri Somkant Verma, coun Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel advance copy. Heard. Learned oounsel appearii petittoner is entitled to benefit of she having passed B. Ed. examin cost. It is submitted that the ISSL longer res integra and the same Supreme Court in the case of A 2009 ffll) MPJR (SC) 59. It is fu taken a similar view in his W.P.(S)No.6257 of 2008. Learnei attention of this Court to order di No. 124 of 2009, wherein retying in the ease of Asha Saxena(supr another Writ Appeal No.87/20t| consideration of the case for grj cireular dated 21-09-1974 issuedl verification ofthe laotspleade'd in| Learned counsel for the petitioner would also be consider^d cpl<i?<rr<iftt tTI'R^ff ^f "fetst ^T^R ^sflwsil^r fan Shrivastava. J. }el fbr the petitioner. [Lawyer for the State/respondents on jg for the petitioner submits that the two advance inorements on aocount of |tion before her appointment at her own involved in the present petition is no tas been finally decided by the Hon'ble ^Aa Saxena vs. State of M.P. S Ors., ther submitted that ttiis Court has also [order dated 06-02-2009 passed in counsel for the petitioner further draws ^ted 29-04-2010 passed in Writ Appeal ijpon the judgment of the Supreme Court a) and the order passed by this Court in direottons have been issued for ant of two advance increments as per by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the petition. espondents submits that oase of the on the same lines. / n / ^""^l^^^"""-ffii5Wffito>!g®5'?»»K«M^^ ^ih 3;aE'"Xl-HC-7S 311^1^1 Vi.'V,* ^v sn^ !fi^i£ti >,/ ~~^ Tumane u wtini **«* 'yst "41'41d'4, ®tI1'y'l<a,fifcll^y vj.('.^)iY»;3^<^/r& >*11<t» •^200 3:[I^T'tI5RT (liclIj»<<SEI) TOTORv s sn^v — 2^- deoide the claim of the petitioner fb after verifioation ofthe facts pleaded weeks from today. q?l^^41'1 Hl^^ff ^f fs*^ ^T^K ^aifOTSfl^si In view of the statement ijnade above, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the r^spondent authorities to oonsicter and grant of two advance increments as per circular dated 21-09-1974 issu^d by the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the petition within a period of eight Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava -- ^ Judge