^\^-^L-i\j^,^^AJ^/^ .-^'AA/^\r^J^.y'~^..F--v^-l^'~"\^v^'^'J''J''J''^'J v:^''^ J^^J^^L^^tT^'^- ^ «» IN THE HON'BLE 1-II6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.6.) W.P;fS)NO. 1134- /ZQIO PETETIONER .-•••«-'3- .-r/A^"'"' o r.^.'^"<.^ ^^y -^. 4'r ^9--"" ^^.-••' Usha Pandey @ Smt. Usha Sharma W/o Shri Pradeep Sharma, aged about 42 years, Lecturer, Anusuchit Jati Adarsh Kanya Aashram Devnkhurd, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.6.) RESPONDENTS : ^'y^ -^ -" ~ ^%^ ^ / ^ \'%^ VERSUS 1. State of C.hhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare bepartment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) ^ 2. Commissioner Trible Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner Trible Welfare Department Composite Building Bilaspur (C.6.) "'C^^a^'--?^ "^. 4. Joint Director', Treasury Account & Pension Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (c.e.) WRIT PETCTION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTtTUTEON OF INblA '£»)L! '-0 ^v~. Amit HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 1 134 of2)10 PETTTIONER : Usha Pandey (% Smt. Usha Shamia , VERSU8 RESPONDENTS : StateofCfahattisgarh&OAers. Wnt Petition Under Article 226/227 QfThe Constitution Offato SB: Hon'ble S&ri Sattsh K. AznihotA J. Present: Shri K.S.Pawar, Advoeate forthe petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Paael Lawyerforthe State/respoa<tents. ORALORDER (Passed on 17n day of March, 2010) ^fth the consent of leanwd counsel for the partfes, the matter Is heaid flnalty. 1. By this prtltion, the petiUoners seek a direction to the respomtents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.Ed examii^on, on her own expenses, brfore entering into senrice. 2. Shn Pawar, leamed counsel appearing for the prtltioners submits Uiatthe issire involved in the present case is no longer iss Integiaas Uie same has been considered and tfecided by the Supreme Court in Aate SaBiBoa f. Slate ofM.P. & 0/s. as well as by thls Court in the matter of Yashwant Kuimr Bhaiadviaj v. Munhapal Corpoia&m, Duig & ancffieF and Gtyesh Kumar Veima v. Tha State Govt of ChhaWsgaih wid anMief. 3. Shri fawar further submits that the inslant p^iton is squarefy covered by tte decishM) as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permMed to mafee a representadon to the respondent authorfties to deckle her ca^s for grant of two increments in the tight of aforestated dedsion, subpct to veriflcation of the faet asto whether the petltioner has acquired B.Ed cerUficate on her own oqienses before entering into service. 4. Leamed counsei appeanng for ttie State/ie^)ond»itssubmits that tn the event, the pefitfoner makes a representation, Ihe same will be consktered and decided, In accoidance wlth law and in the light of the decistons of the Supreme Court in ^sha Saxena (supia) as welt as this Court In Yaslswant Kumar Btsiadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Vemia (siy}ta), vwthin a period of four weeks from tfte date of recelptof the represKrtatton. 5. In view of foregoing, accoreting to the tearned eounsel appearing for the peUtioner, nothlng survfves In this petitionforadjudicaSon. 6. Accordingly, the wrtt petttion is dlsposed ot. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 12009(Hi)MP}R(SC)59 22006(II)MPJR-CO% 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 jr