:1 BEFORE THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WMT PETITION (S) N0. fe^ ^—/2010""^1-* PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 8\^ < •Q." ^fy v^ .•\'^.-^^.-'' -^ ..-•'^•;*-'0/.-'' Vinod Kumar Tirkey (D.Ed.), aged about 50 years, son of Shri Lukas Tirkey, working as - Asst. Teacher, Govt Middle School - Ongana, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, Raigarh (CKhattisgarh) 3.^ The Block Education Officer, Education Block, - Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ESTDIA, HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT B1LASPL7R WRIT PETITION (S) No. 632 of2010 PETmONER : VinodKumarTirkey. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF_DliDIA SB: Hon'bte StetSatish K. Aemhotri.J, Present: Shri A-N.Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, DeputyG.A. forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 11th day of Fehruao', 2010) With consent, leamed counsel forthe parties were heard finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date ofpassing ofD.Ed examination, on his own expenses, duringtheir service period. 2. Shri Bhakta, leamed courisel 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 this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. qfCkhattisgark andanother/ . 3. Shri Bhakta farther subnuts that the instant petition is squarely covered by i the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be pemutted to make a representation to decide his case in the light of afbrestated decision, subject to verification ofthe fact asto whether the petitioner has aequired D.Ed certificate on his own expenses duringthe course ofhis service. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and inthe light ofthe decision offhis Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharad-wa}' and GopeshKumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of tiie representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition fbr adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge