cfv l ^ 't^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BUASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. io /2010 PETITIONER: I??" .&yv vf < -r^- ^••%$- ^^My ^•-'^K'V'"' L<.1''"»^-V yy^fy Smt. Abhay Bairagi, W/o Suresh Ram Bairagi, Aged about 43 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govemment Mult Higher Secondary School Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Educatonal Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The District Education OfEcer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.j The Prineipal Government Mult Higher Secondaiy School Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF UKE NATURE ETC. K ...'^fv^"1 HIGiLC.OURTQECHHAriISGARHATBlL^PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (8) No. 810 of2010 Smt. Abhay Bairagi. RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^ Writ Petition Under Article 226 OfTIie Coiistitution Ofliidia SB: Hon'bleShri Satisfa K. AanUiQtn,J. Present: Slm Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. fortlie State/respondents. OMALO_RDER (Passed on 25th day of Fsbruary, 2010) Wifh consent, leamed counsel for the parties were heard tinally. 1. By this petition, tlie petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from flie date ofpassing ofD.Ed examiiiation, on his o\vn expenses, during his sefvice period. 2. Sliri Patel, leamed counsel appearing fbr tiie petitioner subnuts that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integm as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors. as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwcmt Ktiw.ar Bharad-waj v. Municipal Corporation, Dr.rg & another and Gopesh Kuw.ar Vemia v. The State Govt. ofChhatt'sgarh and anothei^ . 3. Shfi Patel fiirther submits fhat the instant petition is squarely covered by fhe decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make '2009(II)MPJR(SC)59 22006(1I)MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 sr a representation to decide his case in the lieht of aforestated decision, subject to verification ofthe tact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed certificate on his own expenses durinstiie course ofhis sen'ice. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, tlie same will be considered and decided, in accordaace with law and in the light ofthe deeisioiis of the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena (siipra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj aad Gopesh Kumar Venna (supra), wifhin a period offour weeks from the date ofreceipt oftfae representation. 5. In view of fbregoing, according to the leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in tiiis petition fbr adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotri Judge