IN THE HIGH COURT QF CTIHATnSGARHATBILASPUR W. P. (S1 No. •7?°>5 OF 2010. PETITIONERS 1. Srat. Rupa Sinha, W/o. Shri Naresh Kumar Sinha, aged about 43 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Nerli, Block-Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) ^y ^y '•<' .,<?• Ku. Meena Dali Dayal, D/o. late Shri V.K. Dayal, aged about 43 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Patelpara, Bacheli, Block- Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) 3. Smt. Yashmin Usmani, (before Marriage Ku. Geeta Dewangan), W/o. Shri Salim Raja Usmani, aged about 38 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School Bacheli, Block-Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) 4. Treasury Officer, Treasuiy Account and Pension, Dantewada, Distriet Dantewada (C.G.) 5. Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bacheli, Block- Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) WRI'CPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA The petitioners named above beg to submit as under:- 1 PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: As given in the above cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As given in the above cause title. ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7599 OF 2010 Gowri PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Smt. Rupa Sinha & Others Versus State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ^ Present:- 2. 3. 4. Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 3rd day of January, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are gntitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of they having passed B.Ed. examination before their appointment at their own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the same has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors.\ 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 of 2008. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 29-4-2010 passed in W.A.No.124 of 2009 wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court in another W.A.No.87/2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case ofthe petitioners would also be considered on the same lines. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioners for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition within a period of 8 weeks from today. ^ .^^ s^r^ 12009(III)MPJR(SC)59