<^'^-^ ^i^ la s' S.B. fService Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF GHHAmSGARH AT BILASPyR (CHHMTISGARH) WRTT PETmON fSl N0.<3 ?<^ /2010. PETITIONER: ^ ^ KishoreKerketta,sonofJoseph Kerketta, aged about43y€ars, workingasHeadMasfer,G(>yt '^•^V^ Primaiy School, Mahkultoli (Khatanga), Tahsil Duldula, Dista-ict ^.rf^> Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ^'^y' ^^,..^' '^- versus ^ Respondents 'l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, TribalWelfEU-e Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Oepartment, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. z^3 Asst.Commissioner, TribalWelfare Department, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Block Educatipn Officer, Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ^ WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 GF THB CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3369 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kishore Kerketta Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 25tn day of January, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Teacher on 30/06/1993 (Annexure P/2) and before joining of his service, the petitioner has obtained his B.T.I. certificate in the year 1992 from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal (Annexure P/3). It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra as the same has been finally settled by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. StateofM.P. & Ors\ 3. 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 relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court in anotherW.A.No.87 of 2009, directions have been issued for consideration 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case of the petitioner would also be considered on the same lines. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments as per the circular dated 21-9-1974 issuedby the State of Madhya Pradesh after verification of the facts pleaded in the petition within a period of 8 weeks from today. Arun Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59