/" ^_ IN TH3E; HlGrB eQORT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASF'OR W. P. (Sl N6.3.&0^ OF 2011. IB'iTnONER Mohan Lal Dilliwar, S/0. Shri Ganesh Ram Dilliwar, aged about 54 years, Leeturer, Govt. Higher School Chikhlakasa, Block Dtindi, DistrictDurgfC.G.) VERSUS RESgONDENTS \4^' ^*- ,.*' 1: State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Depai-tnaefit ^T\ .D.K.S. Bhewan, RaitSW (C. G-.^ ^.,/f^J^' ^fx^ ^-y^ ^^y^v ^y 2. Commissioner, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Developnlent DepartEnent Pt. Ravishankar SHukla Premises Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) 3. ~Treasury Officer, Treasury Account arid Pension, Durg, Distt. Durg, (C.G.) WRIT KETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226 OFtHE CONSTITUTION OF tNDIA T WH<tl (hHleS dtz| ^l^iy^ gi^y<|^ fa<'||y^< \rf,?'(^1t^.3a^^/t^f 3Ti^itra^ ('^i-i«(<^i) sn^i w Ww wnsn^iwiw t^iTWdftn an^i SB : Hon^le Shri ManindralVIohan Shrtvastava, J. 20-06-2011 Shri Somkant Verma, cx>unsel for Shri Y. S. Thakur, Deputy State/respondents on advanoe copy. Heard. [\e petitioner. Advocate General for the advfence Leamed counsel appearing Tor petttioner is entitled to benefit of two having passed B. Ed. examination befor; submitted that the issue involved in the| integrg and the same has been finally Court in the case of Asha Saxena vs.\ MPJR (SC) 59. It is further submitted similar view in his order dated 06-02-20 2008. Learned oounsel for the petitior|s Court to order dated 29-04-2010 passep wherein re.lying upon the judgment of tj Asha Saxena (supra) and the order pa^s Appeal No. 87/2009, directions have be^ case for grant of two advance incrementt issued by the State of Madhya pleaded in the petition. Leamed counsel for the responsjls Govemment had issued a circular on School Education Department. Pradefeh qiiifwih t(iti<-if •?ft^ <r<if+i;i< ^atfin 311^1 |the petitioner submits that the inorements on account of he appointment at his own cost. It is present petition is no longer res jjecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Stete ofM.P. & Ors., 2009 yil) Ithat this Court has also taken a |09 passed in W.P.(S)No.6257 of ler further draws attention of this in Writ Appeal No. 124 of 2009, ie Supreme Court in the case of [sed by this Court in another Writ fen issued for consideration of the as per oircular dated 21-09-1974 after verification of the facts Bents submits that now the State P5-01-2011, which applies in tl-ie ,^-TU<«S, g ^ ^ j ^^ ^y ..<'•;-'"' XI-HC—78 '•ii^ "'y'^ ~3^ -^WM^, W-SlWW, 'f^TRtg? . w.^C^^-^M/^rll ShNf^""""""""""""""""'""""'/""" 3n^iTR^ (i°ilj«i^), sn^i ^i R;-iji* ^rar STK^I a»«<iqi ^CTiWR^Bsn^i —T_ made bbo^e In view of the statement of with a direction to the respondent claim of the petitioner for grant of tw(> with law, aftervenficationofthefacts ofthree months from the date of reoei|)t ^bo^g, this petition is finally disposed luthorities to consider and decide the advance increments in acoordance [slea.ded in the petition within a period ofa copyof this order. Sd-/ j Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge '^'R^FEfN 'Wt^ ^ 'fs(3^ ^N^R ^stftnsK^I