.»»» „; , c^/^ z S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETmON (S) NQ.^oloo)_/20il. PETITIONER: Shravan Kumar Singh, Jageshwar Singh Thakur, aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher, Priinaiy School Telupara, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur residence of vUlage Tildega, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ' /) fri versus Respondents ^ ^•f- y'->.? (\' ^-^^ f^/^ (yvfW^ \ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. 2. District Educadon Officer, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Block Educadon Officer, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As naentioned ui the Cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in the Cause title. PETiTSONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH_:_B1LASPUR WR1T PETITION (S) N0.20S9p_F_20-[1 Shravan Kumar Sinah RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisaarh & Othsrs fWrit Petition uncier Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Satish Guota, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORM-) (Passed on this 20th day of Aprii, 2011) 1. Heard isarned counsel for the oarties. 2. Leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to beneflt of two advance increments on account of the fact that he has passed D.Ed. examination in February, 2007, during the course of his service, at his own cost. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the peiitloner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no tonger fss integra, as the same has been considered and decided by this Court in Yashwant Kumar fharadwaj v. Mun'scipal Corporatiai, Durg and another and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and anothe^. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his cass in the iight of aforestated decisions. 4. Learned counsei appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner make a representation, the same wiil be considered and decided, in accordance with !aw and in the Sight of the decisions of this Court in Vashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra), v/ithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, subject to verification ofthe facts. In view of foregoing, accordlng to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. S. Accordingly, t'ne writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ''2006 ;!i) MPJR-CG 96 2WP(S)No.4130of2005