THE WRIT PETITION NSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE OF INDIA 226 ’ OF W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1342 of 2010 PETITIONER : Smt. Suchita Minj & another. VERSUS '. Siate of Chhattisgarh 8. Others. RESPONDENTS Writ Petition Under Amcle 226 Of The Constitution Of lndia SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotli, J. Present: Shit Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.KBhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the sate/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 30'“ day or March, 2010) With the consent of teamed counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.T.l. examination, on their own expenses, betme entering into service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submi$ that the issue involved in I the present case is no longer Ies Ihfegra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. Skte ofMP. & Ols.’ as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bhaladwa/ V, Municipai Comoiaa‘on, Dug & anothelz and Gopesh Kumar Verma V. The sate Govt of Chhattisgam andanother? . 3. Leamed counsel futther submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent auti'iorities to decide his case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.l. certificate on their own expenses before entering into service. 4. Learned counsel appeating for the sate/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wiil be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar V Bizaradwaj and Gopes/I Kumar Velma {sup/a), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. ’ 5. ln view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. t 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of ‘ 2009 (m) MPJR (so) 59 ?2006 (11) MPJR-CG 96 1 WP(S) No. 4130 ofzoo5