c^ S.B. (Service Mattert IN THE HIGH COURT^)FCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR <CHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1 SA 2- /2011. PETITIONER: Uma Shankar Sahu, son of Bahur Sai Sahu, aged about 52 years, working as Upper Division Teacher,tnovj-, Ui^e^-s&cay^»y S^zoJ l^a-sAJ District Baloda Bazar (Education), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versys Respondents ^t/--c<y. ^ss ^^> s' c.<." t< 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER AItTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Itfi ashok PETmONER hllGHCOURTOF,.CHHATriSGARH:BlU^3UR WRTT RETmON (S^ NO. 1362 OF 201i UmaShankarSahu RESPONDENTS Versus State ofChhattisgarh& Othera (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConsGtufon of India) Single Bench ; Hon'ble ShriSatishK.Agnihotri, J. present:- Shri C,,JayahtK.Ra6, Advocate forthe peUtioner. ShriY.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General fortheState/ respondents. ORDERiOFiAU ; ; ' (Passedon this 14ttl dayof Mareh, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing foi the petttioner submte tiiat the pefitioner is entitled to benefrt oftwo advance increments on account of having passed B.T.I. examination in theyear 1979 before his appointment i.e. on 07.08.1979, athisowncost. It is submitted that the issue invotved in the presentpetition isnolongerres mt^ra, asthesamehas been finally decided by fte Sypreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State cfM.P.& Ora; ; 3. It is further submitted that this Court has also taken a stmilar view in its orcier dated 6-2-2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008. LeamKl counsel furthersubmitsthat the order dated 29-4-2010 passed in WA.No.124 of 2009, wherein relying upon the judgment of ths Suprenw Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and ttieorder passed by this ©ourtin another W.A.No.87 of 2009, directions have beai issued for consideration ofthe case ft>r grant of two adyance increments as per tie circulardated 21-9-1974 issuedbytheState of MaclhyaPradesh, after verificatidn of the facls pleaded in the petition. 4. Leamed counsel appeanng for e State submttsthat tto casa of the petitioner would also be considered on the same lines. 5. In view of the aboye, the petiUpn is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authqrities to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments, as per the circular dated 21.9-1874, isaied By the Stateof Madhya Pradesh aftervenfication ofthefactspteacted inthe petitionwithinaperiodofSweeksfromtoday. ^^ s^^s 1 2009 (111) MPJR (80 59