Cf\3f¢//_ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P.(S) No. H295 12011 /, PETITIONER : Gaos Mohammad S/o Late Shri Gulam Abdul Kadar, Aged about 5O years, Occupation — Lecturer, Pt. J.L.N. Govt. Higher Secondary School New Khursipar Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG). RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. / Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur /(C.G.) 3. District Education Ofhcer District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.428 OF 2011 Gaos Mohammad Versus PETITIONER RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 17 day of March, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of having passed B.Ed. examination on 6-8—1987 before his appointment i.e. on 17-2-1 989 at his own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as the same has been finally settled by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors.1. It is further submitted that this Court has aiso 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 of 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 of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. m. .L”g ._..,v.‘.,-,, ..‘ Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 Gowri