•^ i^ffiE ^SLE ^^ M<^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} ^/2' W.P. (S) No. 2009 PETITIONERS -1 r?) ^-3. vo' fe" / rr; 'A/ . ^y ^•w/ '^'/ /h*° -3S /.f^^ z^y '~^.; ^i^y^ ^ '<£?" a' Respondents - / 1. 2. ^Js^hi '— Khoman Singh ]ssSs aged 43 years Son of Shri Atma Ram he^m, J t SK^ Upper Division Teacher, Govemment Middle School, Bhardakala, Block Gunderdehi District Durg (C.G.) Ved Prakash Thakur aged 40 years. Son oflate Than Singh Thakur, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Dundiya, Block Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Shri Ram Hadganiya aged 41 years, Son of Shri Ram Sahaya Hadganiya, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Navin Middle School, Kandul, Block Gunderdehi District Durg (C.G.) Bhishamlal Thakur aged 43 years, Son ofFattelal Thakur, Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Kachandiir, Block Durg, Distt. Durg (CG) Versus StateofChhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Director ofPublic Instmctions, State of Chhattishgar, Pension Bada, Raipiir (C.G.) District Education OfBcer, Durg. WSH- - o i(r» <-, e, Block Education OfGcer, Gimderdehi. e^t-f- - oi^(f-y Block Education Officer, Durg. OiStf-- ffti^ f,t /3. -4. .,5. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance^ of_wri^ofmandamus/dir^ctionor any pther apjiropriate writ. n'l ^^) mGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 'ft'RTT FETmON (S} No. 6612 of2009 PETniONERS RESPONDENTS Khoman Sineh Joshi & Others. VERSUS Stete ofChhattisgarh & Othars. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hoa'Me Shri Safish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Sla-i Manik Sinafa, Advocate tbr the petitioner. Shri A-V.Shridhar, Paael Lawyer for Ae State/respondeats. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed oa II'1' dayof November, 2009) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 1. By tlua petitioa, the petitionerg seek a direetion to the respoirients to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D.Bd examination- on tfiea' own expenses. durina their service period. 2. Shri Sinah, leamed counael appearing for the petitioners submits that Ae issue iavolved in the present case is no longer res integra ss the same has been considered and decided by this Court in fhe matter ofYashwant Kwmar Bhwad'waf v. Munic'pal Corporation, Disrg and another and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. qfChhattugarh andanothef/. 3. Shri Sinsh farther submits that Ae instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to make B representation to decide their ease in the light of afoisstated decision, subject to verification ofthe fact asto whether the petitioners have acquired D.Ed certificate on their own expenses during the course oftheir serviee. 4. Lsamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a repregentation, the same wili be eonsidered acd decided, ia accordance with law and in the liasht of the decision of this Cotirt in Yashv/ant Kumar Bharadwm and Gopesk Kumar yerma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. In view offoregome, according to the leamed coimsel appearine for the petitioner, aothina swvives in this petition for adjudieation. 6. Aceordingly, fhe writ petitian ia disposed of. g^y. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "- 2006 (S) MPJR. CG 9&' 2'WP(S)No.4130of2005