C/§\o"5?/\ IN THE HON‘BLE*"‘HIGH C®®W¥OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. s No. 1? /2o11 PETIHONR E K Sm‘r. Urmila Choubey, aged about ..$:l2...years, W/o Shri RamakanT Choubey, Assisfanf Teacher, Governmen‘r Primary Boys School Rajpur'i, Ambikapur, Dish‘. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : /1. Stafe of Chhah‘isgar'h Through Secretary, school Educa’rion ‘Depar'fmenf D.K.s. Bhawan, Raipur‘ (C.G.) 22. Commissioner,Public Insfr‘uc’rions, Raipur (C.G.) /~3. Join? DirecTor‘, Treasury Account & Pension Ambikpaur Dish‘. Sarguja (C.G.) /V 4. Distric’r Education Officer Ambikapur, Dish‘. Sarguja (6.6.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO‘2127 OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Alticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon‘bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotriz J. Present :- $hri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 25‘“ day of April, 201 1) Heard ieaFned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitied to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that she has passed D.Ed. examination in June, 2002, during the course of her service, at her own cost. 3. 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 bv this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another’ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another? Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the authorities concerned to consider her case in the light of aforestated decisions. 4‘ Learned counsel appearing for the‘ State submits that in the event, the petitioner make a representation, the same wiil be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharedwaj (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, subject to verification of the facts. 5. ln view, of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adiudicaticn. // Arun 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/é Satish K. Agnihotyri, Judge i 2006 (Ii) MPJR-CG 96 2 WP (S) Nom 30 or 2005 PETITIONER Smt. Urmila Choubey Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others