J e^-^4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^{'T-I^ OF 2010. PETITIONERS 1.' Manmohan Shukla S/o. late Shri Chandrabhan Shukla, aged about 42 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Khadkapara (Hatkarra), Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) ^: <!•:-• ^""^-;' /^?'°' l^ ^w^y ?s^^^"' :^"' 2: ^- /^ Ved Kumar Kosam, S/o. Shri Jhumuk lal Kosam, aged about 41 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Manjhipara, (Bhodiya), Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) 3. Shyam Sundar Ganwer, S/o. late Shri Bhuwan Lal Ganwer, aged about 41 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Godapara (Chchgaon), Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) 4. Mannu Lal Rana, S/o. Shri Murha Rara Rana, aged about 43 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Hafferra, Bhanbeda, Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS :1 State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Departrrient, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) /^^s^>.. ^\ %.\ 8 j &i:£. !^)8?ftft j © 4/ Treasuiy Officer, Treasuiy Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '••.^"^ i!~& ,,^B3Cte^^ "^ 1 ^lB^, I ••sia®' p Arun 1. 2. 3. HIGH COURTOFCHHATTiSGARH : B1LASPUR WRiT_PETITiON (S) N0.7713 OF 2010 ^jQ.. 'b^' Versus iflanmohan Shukia & Others State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others it Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of Indla) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 3 day of January, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits pstitioners are entitied to benefit of two advance increments on account of they have passed B.Ed. examination before their appointment at their own cost. it is submitted that the issue invoived in the present petition is no longer res integra and the same has been finallv decided bv the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. It is further submitted that this Court has also 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 in W.A.No.124 of 2009 wherein retying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court in another W.A.No.87/2009. directions have been issued for consideration of the case for grant of two advance increments as per the circuiar dated 21-9-1974 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification ofthe facts pleaded in the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case of the petitioner would aiso be considered on the same lines. In view of the above. the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the ciaim of the petitioners for grant oftwo advance increments as perthe circular dated 21-9-1974 issued -by the StateoT Madhya Pradesh after verification ofthe facts pleaded in the petition within a period of 8 weeks from today. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 12009(II!)MPJR(SC)59 lliM