C-^/^ L?-S5-C> ^o ^ 1©J^ 1N THE HQNBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S)NO 3,1^6 PETITIONERS ^ ^w/.^ "> .^ / -^'^ ^ ^ /^/^ <\ .o'/^ ^ ^ M/ ^ ^ On /j /^ /^ /. / ^' A • -?^^ ^ RESPONDENTS : 2011 s/o Ram 1.' Dhanjay Kumar Sinc Prasad Singh aged about 36 years, Post- Upper Division Teacher , Middle Schoo! i$erta District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 Rajendra Prasad Yadav s/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Yadav Aged about 41 years, Post- Upper Division Teacher, Middie SchooS Khadgaonkala District Sarguja ^(C.G.) 3 Narayan Prasad Yadav s/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Yadav Aged about 46 years, Post- Upper Division Teacher, Middle School Khadgaonkala District Sarguja(C.G) 4' ishwar Ram s/o Bagarsai age 41 years Middle SchooS Kasri Block Pratappur District Sar-guja (C.G.) VERSUS 1 / State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary Tribal Weifare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, ^'Raipur(C.G.) 2. Assisiant Commissioner Tribal And Weifare Department Distt.Sarguja (C.G) WR|T_PETSTON UNDER_ARTICLE_226,gFJ:HE_CONSTiTUT10N _QFJNDJA :- XI-HC—78 N'fflrii ^w^ ^-^ ^mT^R, '£$>-rt!J-l<!(?, "f^TRTy ^.W....i).-..Q.^..aMl.^..|...T1^200 ^TT^T T??^5> (<i^?ls<<^) ^¥l^?1^T!^' ^rm-sn^i 5F?TW ^HW^^i^Tr^ SB : Hon'bSe Shri IVSanindra IVIohan SNrivastava, J. 20-06-2011 Shri Aj'ay Shrivastava, counsel fof| Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyerfoilthe copy. Heard. Learned counse! appearing forj petitioners are entitied to benefit of two they having passed B. T I. examinatiot cost. It is submi'tted that the issue invi$ ionger res Integra and the same has b{ Supreme Court in the case of 2099 (lli) (SC) 59. It is further taken a similar view in his ordel W. P. (S)No. 6257 of 2008. Learned attention of this Cout't to order dated No.-124 of 2009, wherein relying upon in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) an<| another Writ Appeat No. 87/2009, consideration of the oase for grant o| circular dated 21-09-1974 issued by t^| verification ofthe facts pleaded in the Learned counsei for the Government had Issued a circuiar cn I School Education Department. oounse the '^j'^rfwfh' Hi^<nf ^ "fe^t Tf^$1^ ^'-^tRR^T?^? the petitioners. State/respondents cn advance the petitioners submits that the iadvanoe increments cn account of i|i before appointment at their own inv^ived in the present petition is no )ben finally decided by the Hon'bie vs. of MR & Ors., feubmitted that this Court has aiso dated 06-02-2009 passed in forthe petitioners further draws $9-04-2010 passed in Writ Appeai judgment of the Supreme Court the order passed by thls Court in clrections have been issued fpr two advance increments as per fe State of Madhya Pradesh, after p^tition. respon^ents submits that now the State 105-01-2011, which appijes in the ^7^ ^^T^... //"^•'\ 1 ^- .^ ^ ^ -"^'-XI-HC—78 ^Ti^r ^] fen^ ^CJf 3TR¥T $^^jch Tumane K° ^"^ '-^!<4!<ri&!, %s>Ti1'y^i(o, fs^rray HW^Sl ^W^^..^.!M^.Q^. :l^t 200 ^!^!'^^1 (^t^<^r) i^WCTrf^T ^T^I -2-' in view ofthe statement macj of with a direction to the respondenj clajm of the petitioners for grant of ] with !aw, after verification ofthefacl ofthree months from the date of resj '^j^i^^N ^iH^iT ^* t^st Tf^$K ^-^TH W^? e above, this petitbn is finaliy disposed S: authoritles to consider and decide the two advance increments in accordance s pteaded In the petition within a period eipt of a copy ofthis order Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge