d^\.. S.B. (Service Matterl IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATHSGARH) WRITPETITION (S) N0.13-^^/2011. PET1TIONER: Punau Ram Sahu, son ofThanu Ram Sahu, aged about 53 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, tnou^, tujiiay&stow**'/ Sd^vo^ k^^i^ District Baloda Bazar (Education), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versys RespQndents 1.^ StateofChhattisgarh,Through Secretary Bkiucation Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ,\f^'" ^^^ ^^€>y ..-••' **o^y ^.^ ^••'' -^" 2. District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasuiy and Pension, Raipur, District Raipiir, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER AKTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGU COURT OF GHHATTtSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITtON (S^ N0.1357 OF 2011 PETITIONER Panau RamSahu RESPQNDENTS Vereus State of Chhattisgarh & Others , (Writ PeAition under Article 226ofthe Constitution of tndia) Single Bench: Hon'bleShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri CJayantK. Rao, Advocate for the prtitioner. ShriY.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General forthe State/ respondents. ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 14th daypf March, 2011) 1. l-1eardieamed counsei forthe parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submtts that the petitioner is entitled tp benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed B.T.I. examination on 1910.1981,athisowncpst,durtngthecourse of his service. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitipner submits that the tssue involvKl in the present case js no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and dedded by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwajv.Municif^il Corporaffon, Durg andaisother'aTKt Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgsvh and anoffief3. 4. Leamed counsel further submtts that the instant petttipn is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make arepresentation to decjde his ease in the 1 2006 (II) MPiJR-CG 96 2 WP (S) No.4130 of 2005. {ight ot aforestated deeisions, suyeGt to verifte^ton of the fa(*B asto whether the petltioner has acqutred B.T.I. certificate, on his ownexpenses,duringthecouraeofserviGe. Learned counsel appearing for the State submfts that m the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will becCTisidered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwa} {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 petitioner, nothing survives in this petttion for adjudicatton. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ^--^" !- ashok e i ;r"