IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P, [S}No. ^\'9b OF 2011. PETITIONER /: Tej Ram Kaushik, S/o. Shri Anshram Kaushik, aged about 41 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Sarangpal, Block Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSU S cff' 'l?\^ w" RESPONDENTS .^%^ ^y ^.^ ^ :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ^4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ^ ^ 5. Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar at Jagdalpur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TB' ^v (i!^ t-HC^-':8 an^ir^ifiFte m arfe'i gntai; *im<r(r a>in^a 3'Sf "qitfiy^, ®iil^'is,fa(diylj,< L^pC^) \^o. hl/^n •Wt. 200 S(^\ '<^?T (T^f^q^q) ?%iTW;aft?i sn^i SB : Hon''ble Shri Manindra M^han Shrivastava^J 09-08-2011 Shrl Somxant verma, Shri Praveen Das, Learnea counsel petitioner is entitled to beneti havina passed B.t .1. examini 1s submitted that the Issue ii integra and the same nas Court in the case of Aslia cbunsel for the petitioner. G.A. forthe State on adva iti 4'I^Id^il-l wraf 'if fe^ tfa^K ^affiCTCT^i 11: of two advance incren i^tion before his ilvotved in tne preseni tleen finaliy decided by 6'axena vs. State of K on account of rse at nis own cosi. it on 1s no lonaer res Hon'ble supreme tt Is further submitted tfiat this Court has aiso taKen a slmiiar viev/ in its order dated 06-02-2009 bassed in Vv.P.(S)No.6257 counsei for the petitioner furtjier draws attention of thss 29-04-2010 passed in w'rit Aibpeat No.124 of 2009, wherein iudflment of the Supreme Co<irt in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court have been issued tor conslcjeratlon ot the case ror grant increments as per circular d^ed 21 -09-1974 issued by the State of hnadhya Pradesh, after veriflcation ofihe faots pieaded in the petrtion. Learned counsei for the State submits that case of the petitioner would also be considerea on the sgme iines. ^ST ^nw^, '^•dl-y'iri, f^TRPp: L0^^9 1/vo '^l^^il If STI^T Tra^ (i^ta^'t^) !CT!»31R?(»mW i;sep& TRiIWtfe 3iI^?F In view of fhe statement macls off with a direciion to the respondefit claim of petitioner for grant of two ^ 21-09-1974 issued by the State of facts oieaded in the petitlon within g| ^>1'4^'4)T1 'iffEl^ff ^ 1^T3t ^N^R ^siRnsn^r le aaove, this petltion is nnat it authorlties to consider and dvance increments as per ci aner veni ar.dated of Manindra Mohm Shrivastava Judge ;IH^?i^^R^g°TTBaT,ll<:3iklii^—yS/140— 2/2011—1,50,000. ^n^'v-—"/yJ^ 'M'" J » r^^-i /