ieiiMiRs c siAErv ^SNt.id.K .WCt^l.j'P \ S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATnSGARHl WRITPETITION(S)N0.^3fc.> /2011. PETITIONER: Shyam Sundar Sahu, son of Bagas Ram Sahu, aged about 53 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, in-urO tsiouj- H's' Tiistrict Baloda Bazar (Education), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents ^A^W fvW ^.4^y ^j-' /'yoy ^" .<<•• ^••" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K-S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -2. District E^lucation Officer, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasuiy and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. w WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i^ ashok PETITIONER RESPQNDENIS HIGH COURTOK^CHHM'TiSGARH: BILASPUR WRIt PETITION (S) N0.13^ OF2011 Sh^m Sundar Sahu Versus . State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of hidia) SingleBench; Hon'bte Shri SaUsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- SbrtC.JayantK.f?ab,Adv6catefortttepetitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL1 (Passed on this 14th day of March, 2011) 1. t-teardteamedcounselfortheparties. 2, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submte that ttie petitioner is errtitled to benefitof two advance increments on account of having passed B.T.t. examination in the year 1979 before his appointment i.e. on 11.01.1980, at his own cost. It is submitted that the tesue involved in thepresent petition is no longer res/ntegra, asthe same has beenflnatly decided byftieSupreme CouTtmAsha Saxenav, StaieofM.P. & Ore. . 3. It is further submitted thatftiis Court has also teken a similar view in its orderdated 6-2-2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008. l.eamed counsel further submite that the order dated 29-4-2010 passed in W.A.No.124 of2009, wherein relying upon the judgmentofthe Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and the order passed by this Court in another WA.No.87 <tf 2009, direcBons have been issued for conSiderationof the ease forgrantof twoadvance incrementsasper the cireulardated21-9-1974issuedbythe State of Madhya Pradesh, after verification ofthefacts pleaded in the pedtion. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that ttw casetrfthe petitioner would also be considered on the same lines. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments, as per the cireular dated 21-9-1974, issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh after verification of the facte pleaded in the petition within a peripd of 8 weeks from today. -teb^r '2009 (III)MPJR (SC)59