@mE E:mm > : Mira S.B. (Service Matterl m mp: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP (CHHATTISGARH) RIT PETITION (S) No. ‘EM ‘4/201 1. Lnmati Minj, wife of Late Louis Minj, aged about 48 years, working as Head Mistress, Govt. Primary School Pathratoli (Duldula), Tahsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER: VCI‘SHS State of Chhattisgarh, Through secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. / 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Asst. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. . Block Education Officer, Duldula, Tahsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ UR W / o NW HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 344 of2011 PETITIONER : Lilmati Minj. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRI'I‘j’ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QE INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K Amog' J. g, petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. (Passed on 18 day of February, 201 I) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submi1s that the issue of grant of two annual increments to the teachers on account of obtaining B.Ed/D.Ed/B.T.I. qualification on their own cost, before L entry into service, came up for consideration before the Supreme Couit in Asha Saxena v. State ofMP. & Oral. Despite specific directions of the Supreme Court, the Block Education weer, Duldula, District Jashpur has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to two armuai increments as she had obtained B.Ed qualification before entry into service. Thus, the impugied order dated 18.08.2010 is bad and vitiated. Further, this amounts to non-compliance of the mandate issued by the Supreme Court inAsha Swcena". g. i i KK- 1 2009 (m) MPJR (so) 59 ~ ORDER ORAL , > ‘Amit <79/ 2. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner is entitled to two annual increments in view ofthe order passed by the Supreme Court inAsha Saxena’. 3. In View of the above submission, particularly when there is a specific mandate of the Supreme Court and the Block Education Omcer, Duldula, District Jashpur has declined to grant reliefto the petitioner, the order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to two annual increment on account of § passing B.Ed examination before entry into service. 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 5000/- payable to the petitioner, which may be recovered hem the otticer concemed who has igiored the judicial l \ mandate. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge