@ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrISGARH AT BTLAspuR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) No. ¥2$6 OF 2010 mm WM &//Wv?_/,_’ PETITIONER /’ Santosh Kumar Rajput, S/o kanhaiyalal Rajput, aged about 46 years, Posted as Headmaster, Government Primary School, Ramhepur (J), Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.‘) VERSUS RESPONDENT : / . State of Chhattisgarh: S 1 Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director Public Instructions, Raiur, District Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA g p 31W m Lxrkp;..ga>.§>4?~ mw ‘g’i 200 mm mg WW§WW mmmw émfaqm 3.3.: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. PRITIN l3-12-2010: Shm' P.P.Sahu, counsel for the p titioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G’A. for t e State, Counsel appearing for the titioner submits thai the petitioner who was appointed on the p st of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department on 3. 12. 1994 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not addi g two advance increments in his salary even though he did his D ER DIWAKER from the Board of Secondary Education at his own cost after seekin permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the parties do no dispute that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely co red by the order in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadaj Vs. cipal Corporation, \Durg & Another (2006 (II) MPJR CG.96) & opesh Kumar Verma Vs. The Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Another (W .(S) No. 4130/2005]. i Counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, th same will be considered and the light of the decisions of mar Bharadaj (supra) within a period of four weeks from the date of ceipt of the representation. In View of the foregoing, nothi survives in this petition and the same is accordingly disposed of, It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and theiauthorit concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation stricty in accordance with law, considering all the aspects of the'case. decided in accordance with law and this Court in the matter of Yashwant e E . M . i u e ‘ n