o /^ 'ff<? o IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.p.rs)No. te)^' /2010 SIN6LE PETCTIONER ?v' ' ..-•^ \^<'l^'' i-o'^€--" .-y"' ^.^ -^. «-"'„.; §>-- ^vy RESPONOENTS f •^. Mahendra Kumar Bhuwal S/o Late Shri G.S. Bhuwal, Aged about 40 years, Lecturer, Presently posted as Assistant Research Officer ( Sahayak Anushandan Adhikari ) C&. Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Raipur (C.6.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^ Commissioner Trible Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3." The Secretary/Member C.G. RajyG Anusuchit Janjati Ayog 61, Jatvihar Colony Raipur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Treasury Account <Si Pension Raipur Distt. Raipur (^.) WRIT PETITCON U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^_ f.^' '<^: ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (SV No. 1057 of2010 PETmONER : Mahendra Kumar Bhuwal. VERSUS RE8PONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon»MeShri Satish K. Asmhotri, J. Present: Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane La^yer forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 12" day of March, 2010) With fhe consent ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents topay two advance increments from the date ofpassing ofB.Ed examination, on his own expeiises, during his service period. 2. Shri Pawar, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in tlie present case is no longer res mtegraas the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court m.4^a Saxena v. State qfMP. <& Or^. as well as by this Court in the matter ofYashwant / Kumar Bharad'waj v. Mv.nicipal Cprporation, Durg & anothe^ and GopeshKumar Verma v. TheState Govt. ofChhattisgarh andanothe^ . 3. Shri Pawar further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permittedto malce a representation to the respondent authorities to decide his case in the 12009(III)MPJR(SC)59 22006(II)MPJR-CG96 3WE(S)No.4130of2005 '^. light of afbrestated decision, sutyect to verification of the fact asto whetherfhe petitioner has acquired B.Ed certificate on his owii expenses duringthecourseofhissendce. 4. Leamed coynsel appearing fbr the State/respondents submits that m the event, the petitioner makes a representation, fhe same will be considered and decided, in accordaiice with law and in the light ofthe decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadivcy axid Gopesh KumarVerma (supra), within a period offbur weeks fromthe date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. Iii view of foregoing, according to tlie leamed couiisel appearing for the petitioners, nofhing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordmgly,fhe writpetition is disposedof ^.-^.^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit