IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) I w.P. (S) No. q? I y‘ C 2010 PETITIONEggJ // Smt Punarr; Deshmukh. w—fe,’_ aged about 49 years w/o Shri Danush Deshmukh, Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondry Maroda Tank Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : /l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary Education Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education officer Durg (C.G) Dim; ouraicc) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH I con’ISTITUTION OF INDIA i E IHC22 l $9§ @‘V WW,WW,W Ewx 3mm mmu€®w ”3N(n 00 WmmW ~ w Wm $3.: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. PRI‘I‘INKER bIWAKER 134242010: I i Shrti Somkant Vanna, counsel for the‘ petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, P.L. for the Staff; Counssl for the petitionsr submits tExat the petitioner is entitled to benem of two advance increments on account of she having passed B.Ed. examinah'on efom her appointment at her own cost. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petin'on is no longer res integra d the same has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. 85 Ors. 009 (HHMPJR (SC) 59. It is fuxther submitted that this Court has also taken a similar View in its order dated 6. .2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6257/ 2008. Counsel for the petiti ners further submits that the order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Writ Appeal NO. 124/2009, wherein relying upon the judgmen of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) and 'e order passed by this Court in another Writ Appeal No. 87 2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the c se for giant of two advance increments as per circular dated 1.9. 1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verifica ‘ n of the facts pleaded in the petition. Counsel for the State sub ts that case of the petitioner [tits ate“? \\ m mmmm mamamfiwm a73$atrm peddoner for grant of two advance increments as per circular ate of Madhya Pradesh after the petirion within a period of m g dated 21.9.1974 issued by the S‘ verification of the facts pleaded 1n eight weeks from today. It is made clear that this 4 Dourt has not expressed any opinion on men'ts of the case and the, authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the with law, Prltlnker Dlwaker Judge same strictly in accordance Sd/— i [Tile i’fewi