<L^" \<ys] SingSe Bench INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS^ N0.- ^3^-f /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1< .\^':\ ,()0Y\6>^1\ 3- ^§^^v .^y ^- -.^•'' 4. 5. Devar Singh Patel, aged about 48 years, Son of Shri Deo Prasad Patel, "Upper Division Teacher", presently posted at Govt. Middle School- Bargaon, Block - Baramkela, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director / Commissioner, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director (Accounts, Treasury & Penslon) Bilaspur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, District - Raigarh (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Block- Baramkela, District- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A - 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPRftPRIATE Wlirr/ DIRECTION/ ORDER ETC. T ^ <^ XI-HC—78 3?1^T ^T 1<<li4» ^iT '3?T^T $h<4<<* ||NNI»^^ „ ^^ ^i^i<vi^/^xi1^^<D, f^Kni-Hy ^^....M.^J...R^li ^wx»iT<b«irt»» ^200 ^ ^[^s TT5w (^ii^^r) yRHW^fS'cT 3^^i fSB^ :JEIpn'ble Shri Maninldra Mohan Shrivastsroa, J.1 8.8.2011 Shri Roop Naik, couf Shri Pravin Das, advauce copy, isel for tlie petititoner. ^. Govt.. Advocate for fhe State, on $y Heard on admission Leamed counsel f^T the petitioner submits fhat the petitioner has passed therefore, tlie petitioner i^ he has completed tlie D.| the decision in the case Mi&xiicipal Corporatiosi) submits fhat this aspect Badriaarayan Acharya & leamed counsel for the pe <=bl^{d4)'< 'RTR^ff ^f f^T^> iHq^K ^ •Slf^R 3?i^?T D.Ed. Examination during sendce, entitled to two advance increments, as Ed. training at his own expenses. He submits that fhe issue mtolyed m fhe writ petition is covered by C.G.96) & Gopesh Kui^ar Verma Vs. the State Ckivt. of Chhattisgarh and anot^ier [W.P. (S) No.4130/05). He also of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Durg 8s another [2006 (II) MPJR has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Statje of Madhya Pradesh & another ¥s. Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 2779). According to itioner the petitioner's case is identical. In view'of the subin|ssions so made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it. is direct^d that respondents shall consider the T XI-HC—78 3T1^T ^T ^;11J<=b ^T^TT <3;H^I^TN? Praveeb ^.,&" '3^T •-Al(^K>1'4, ^•^-(-l'llcD, f^'^l'y^ 11*iCTI WHICh "^200 3Ti^?r i^w (^cil^<^) ^^WC^f^f 3^T —2J clalm of fhe petitioner ^n fhe light of his submission and the judgment, which have b^ i=bi^[<rt4l^ ^nwif ^ 'te^ <P*f^i< ^T3:i^W31T^r en referred to and if it is found ttiat the petitioner is also identi^ally situated, the benetit shaU also be extended to the petitione^. With the aforesai<i disposed of. observations, fhe petition is finally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge