a -1 - IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.'(S)No. ^^ j 2QiQ-2s\\ PETITIONERS - fl) Anand Kumar Wahne, aged 41 years S/oShriBrajlalWahne, Head Master,Primary School, Bhurbhusi, Block, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) . (2) Kunjilal Paikra, aged 40 years c!-2^[y..' S/o Babulal Pai, . ^\v^^ -.••" Upper Division Teacher, Dhodha ,ff\6^ ,.-• R1r>n1c ni1iink1iadfl/ €'M^^ "./"'x^' ' ^'' /•:"°• ^" ;.„•••'>• <.«-'' >sSy '^^ Block, Chhuikhada, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENS ,(1) The State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department Ministery, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSSUANCE OF MANDAMUS OF WRIT/ DIRECTIQNJ)R ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT Petitioner respectfully Prays as under:- (1) Particulars ofthe petitioners :- As stated above. (2) Particulars of the respondents. :- As stated above. (3) Order against which writ petition is beins filed. 1 ^ %.'•!&., <i <a F ^" iy' j^y fflOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETmON (S) No. 744 of2011 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS Anand Kumar Wahne & Another. VERSUS The State Govemment of Chhattisgarh & Another. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Present: Shri Somkant Venna, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Sin^i, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDERCORAL) (Passedon 10th dayofFehruary,2Qll) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners suhtmts that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of two advaiice incremaits on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed B.T.I. examination in the year 1991 and 1993, respectively, before entering into the service i.e. on 23.08.1994, at their ovm cost. 2. Leamed counsel qtpearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case is iip loager res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court inAAa Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors.as well as by this Cqurt in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Carparation, Dwg and anothef^ asdGcpesh Kumar Verma v.The State Govt^ of CWwttisgarh and cawthe^' • 3. Uamed counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by tfae deeision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioners may rl ^-gs&i i •.;-s^ f .•';" •^. 9 ^ l^ be permitted to make a representation to decide their cases in Ifae light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of flie facts asto whether the petitioners have acquired B.T.I. certificate on their own expenses before entering iiito serviee. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State subnaits that in the event, fhe petitioners make a representation, the same will be oonsidered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions ofthe Supreme Court mAsha Saxetia (supts^, within a periodoffour weeks fixun the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. In view of foregoin^ aecording to the leamed coumel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordmgly, the wdt petition is disposed of. Sd?- Judge [1] 2009 (ffl) MPJR (SC) 59 [2]2006CII)MPJR-CG96 [3] WP (S) No.4130 of2005 Amit