cff 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. "-K^ll OF^PJ.O. SlftSLI B PETITIONER .^^? ^iS^ '..••sL.>\t''.--'\ ^.'-••" *•< ^\/.--'' ^6/ ^" * 'Y.-'-' • ^•':^ o^. .. "^•"' Dron Kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Ramratan Sahu, aged about 41 years, Lecturer, Govt. Shringrishi, Higher Secondary Nagari, Block Nagari, District Dhamtari (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through : TheSecretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Nagari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (^ ••v- s-^> 4. Treasury Officer, Treasuiy Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA !'-- Arur HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRiT PETITION fS) N0.7711 OF 2010 Petjtjoner Dron Kumar Sahu Versus State Govt. of Chhattlsgarh & Others ^ (Wrii Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sushii Dubey, Government Advocats for the State. • ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 3 day of January, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submlts that the petitioner is entitled to benefrt of two advance increments on account of he has passed B.Ed. examination before his appointment at his own cost. It is submitted that the issue Invoived in the present petition is no longer res integra and the same has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. Stafe of M.P. & Ore.1. 2. !t is further submitted that thls Court has aiso taken a similar view in its order dated 6-2-2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 29-4-2010 passed sn W.A.No.124 of 2009 wherein relying upon the judgment of the SuDreme Court in fi.sha Saxena (suora) and the order oassed bv this Court in another W.A.No.87/2009, directions have been issued for conslderation of the case for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification ofthe facts pleaded in the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case of the petitioner would also be considered on the same iines. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disoosed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the ciaim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issued bv.the State of Madhva Pradesh aftsr verification of the facts oleaded in the petition within a Deriod of 8 weeks from todav. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2009 (111) MPJR (SQ 59