$§§x§é§§$§ In the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattishgarh at Bilasgur 16G.) WP. (S) No. EM} 2009 Petitioner / Teku Ram Gautam, aged 35 years S/o Shri Khem La} Gautam Assistant Teacher Govt. Primary School, Arajpuri, Block Dondi- Lohara, Distt. Durg C.. Versus Respondents ...... /1. State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, e /2/\ School Education Department Ministry, NV? - t».. avg? i’” D.K.s. Bhavan, Ralpur - (co) .v ‘ r r]... ....... ”’5” /2. District Education Offlcer, Durg. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ or Mandamus/Direction or other aggropriate writ % G / HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 61 67 of 2009 PETlTiONER : Teku Ram Gautam. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State Government of Chhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hcn’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyer for the Statefrespondents. oRAL ORDER (Passed on 05‘ day or January, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. . By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during his service period. . Shri Verma, 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 this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipai Corporation, Durg and another7 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and anothe? . Shri Verma 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 his case in the tight of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed certificate on his own expenses during the course of his service. . Learned 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 in the light of the decision of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. . ln View of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. U) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sdl- 2 ‘2c06 sWP (S) (11) N‘o.4i30 MPIR CG or2005 96 .