(?-^ •.(S)NO. 1'f-^'^ /2011 ^ ^"'.^•"c.^f"; ..^y^ .. 'vv""f^f: ^•".^" ?A. /^^ " <"^ /£?'/ ^^ i^SM.f^^t /t Smt. Induraati Xaxlo, W/o Abraham Xaxlo, aged about 37 years, working as Head Master Primary School, Naharpara(Bagicha), Block- Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.j Smt, Godliba Tirkey W/o Anthony Tirkey, Aged about 47 Years, Working as Head Master Primary School, Peta, Biock- Bagicha, Distt-JashpurfC.G.) 1.'' State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Departn-ient, Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block - Bagicha Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) <' Treasury Officer, Treasury Account & Pension Jashpur, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) K ia <-<<i^. i-ii'T.'-n ^••jnfvj ^^<([ ^^ J^T:; ';•; ^•.~ ;;..-t 35 ^'^'f ^ F^q .ST'^: g^rg- ^ij Sr ( 5S. ^ 'i'il HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PET'TION (S) N0. 1767 OF 2011 -^c\ PETITI Smt. Indumatl Xaxio & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDERJIQRAL) (Passed on this 01st day of April, 2011) 1. Heard learned counset for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitied io bensfit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petitioner No.1 has passed B.T.I. examination in the year 1993 before her appointment i.e. on 10.04.1995 and the peiitioner No.2 has passed B.T.I. in Ihe year 1982 before her appointment i.e. on 20.04.1992, at thejr own cost. 1{ is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no ionger res integra, as the same has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors.'. 3. lt is further submitted that this Court has also taken a simiiar view in its order dated 6-2-2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008. Learned counsei further submits that the order daled 29-4-2010 passed in WA.No.124 of 2009, wherein reiying upon the'judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by ihis Court in another W.A.No.87 of 2009, directions have been issued for consideration of the case for granl of tv/o advance increments as per the ciroular dated 21-9- 1974 issued by the State of IVIadhya Pradesh, afier verification oflhe facts pleaded in the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case of the petitioners would also be considered on the same lines. 5. ln view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent auihorities to decide the claim of the petitioners for grant of two advanoe increments, as per the circuiar dated 21-9-1974, issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh after verification of the facts pleaded in the peSition within a period of 8 weete from today. 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 Sd/- —s