\\~ _ §M§LE 5Ef§é€H Q a, (a / IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 2011 w.P. (S) N0. 6%} f2 . PETITIONERS 1. Banshi Lal Dewangon, S/o Shri Surit Ram Dewangon, Upper Division Teacher, aged about 41 years, Govt. Primary School Rapakharra, Block ~ Korba, District ~ Korba (C.G.) Santosh Lal Kaiwart S/o Late Shri Ghansyam Lal kaiwart, Head Master, aged about 37 years, Govt. Middle School Belakachar, Block — Korba, District ~ Korba (C.G.) Syam Lal Aswani, S/o Shri Bishahu Ram Aswani, aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher Govt. Primary School Damarkhacha, Block — Kartla, District — Korba (0G,) Bhola Sankar Kajwart, S/o Shri Hira Ram Kaiwart, aged about 37 Govt. Primary School Masan, District — Korba (C.G.) Manohar Singh Kanwar, S/o Shri Chintawan Singh Kanwar, Head Master, aged about 4O years, Govt. Tribal welfare primary School Sarwamanglapara Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) years, (5. V / 6. Hari Singh Kanwar, S/o Buthak Singh, Upper Division Teacher aged about 43 years, Govt. Middle School Tilajdad, District ~ ~ Korba (C.G.) VERSUS W RESPONDENTS : , 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary Tribal and Welfare Department D.K:S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) s / 2. Assistant Commissioner Tribal j Welfare and Development Korba (C‘G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L wmmmg‘ \‘w/ r § ,I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO‘681 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Banshi Lal Dewangon & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K, Agnihotri, J. Present :~ Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners; RESPONDENTS 1 2009 (iii) MPJR (so) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 3 WP (S) No.4130 of 2005 Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) 1. (Passed on this 4‘” day of February, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the 2. Heard learned counsel for parties. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of B.T.I. examination, on their own expenses, during their service period. 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 the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of MP. & Ors.1 as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another? 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to make to decide their case in the of permitted a representation case light aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioners have acquired B.T.l. certificate on their own expenses duringthe course of their service. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as weli as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of, the representation. in View of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. M.aa.aa Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri , Judge 7