WWW 3? @ 1 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH coUR'r OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR (C.G.) w.P. (S) No .........K 22%}.............. 2011 PETITIONER Pushp Lata Tiwari D/o Late Shri Sheoboodhan Prasad Tiwari, aged about 49 year, Head Master Primary School Ktelpara (Pathgawa) Block District — Bilaspur (C.G.) — Pendra, Satyanarayan. Choudhary, S/o Shri Beshna Choudhary, aged about 4O year, Govt. Middle School Jaradevri, Block ~ Pendra, District — Bilaspur (C.G.) ' Ram Singh Wakra, S/o Shri Kishun Lal, aged about 37 year, Govt. Middle School Pateratola (Bhadi), Block w Pendra, District — Bilaspur (C.G.) Narayan Singh Paikra, S/o Late Shri Tilasan Singh, aged about 42 year, Govt. Middle School Broudipara (Jilda), Block — Pendra, District — Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary Tribal and Welfare Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare and Development Bilaspur (C. G) RESPONDENTS : WRIT Block Education Offlcer (C. G) Treasury Accounts Bilaspur (CG) PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N Pendra and pension OF THE H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PET‘TION (S) NO. 1821 OF 2011 PET!T!ONERS Pushp Laia Tiwari & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Adicle 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. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 05 day of April, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that they have passed D.Ed. examination in the year 1997, 1998, 1998 & 1997 respectively, during the course of their service, at their own cost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Duty and another’ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and anotherz. Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation to decide their cases in the light of aforestated decisions. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners make a representation, the same wilt be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra), within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, subject to veritication of the facts. 5. ln view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ,.. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘ ashok 1 2006 (u) MPJR-CG 96 2 WP (S) No.41 3o of 2005