® IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. H^ /2011 PETCTCONER Sunder Singh Netam, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Mahesh Ram Netam, working as Upper Diyision Teacher, 6ovt. Middle School Malda, Block Podi Uproda, Distt. Korba (C.6.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. M^ w 2.^ 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury Account <& Pension Korba, Distt. Korba (C.6.) WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTECLE.226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INblA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:- . l^ PARTECULARS OF THE PETITCONER As mentioned in the Cause title. ^- (^ HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH.: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 788 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Sunder Singh Netam Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAU . (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel 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.T.1. examination in the year 1978 before entering into the service i.e. on 21.06.1986, at his own cost. 3. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue invoived 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 M.P. "& Ors. as wel! as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothei2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and snothe^. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squareiy covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his ca.se in the 1200S(III)MPJR$SC)59 22006(]1)MPJR-CG9S 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 "* ashok 7. 2 iight of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wili be considered and decided, in accordance with law 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 counse! appearing forthe petitioner, nothing survivesin this petition for adjudication. Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. ./'"' Satish K. Agmhotri Judge