CL^-) <T^7/- ySNVLE 3ENCH 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S) No. / 2011 PETITIONER "^ ,^1-Q>>-- RESPONDENTS c Smt. Asha Menon D/o Shri J. A. Menon, Aged about 44 years, Occupation - Lecturer,. Govt. Higher Secondary School Balod Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /' 2. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. 2. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER.:- Same as above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS. Same as above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS BEING MADE. That, petitioneris being filed the instant petitioner before this Hon'ble Court, not challenging any particular order, but the petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondents and seeking a direction to the respondents to grant two advance increments in account of B. Ed. Examination passed by the petitioner in the year 1986 in view of the circular dated 21.091974 and the order passed ^ .-^ HiGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITiON (S) N0. 924 OF 2011 Smt. Asha Menon Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Sing!e Bench : Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Present:- Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. ORDER(ORAL) ' (Passed on this 14th day of Februar^, 2011) 1. Heard learned counset for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination before entering into the service, at her own cost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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. Stafe of M.P. & 0/s. as we" as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothe'2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of ChhaWsgarh and anothe^. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide her case in the 12009(111)MPJR(SC)59 22006(11)'MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 -•-R;/"<%, 7. z light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. certificate on her own expenses before entering into service. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner 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), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ___—- - ' ^ pra' aown sd/ .-..^islwa sbantKuWar judfee