J‘} W / Wm ww \f: S.B. (Service Matteg IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) No. (963 /2o10. PETITIONERS: 1.Basant Kumar Kanthale, son of Shri Bisahu Kanthale, aged about 41 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Devrani, Block Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (Education), District Raipur,£hhat’iisgarh. ’2. ChandrajikKurre, son of Baghela Ram Kurre, aged about 42 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Block Maldi, Block Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (Education), District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VerSus Respondents l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhavvan, Raipur, C.G. K' 2. District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / 1 2009 (m) MPJR (SC) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 3 WP (S) No.413o of 2005 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1963 0f 2010 PETITIONERS : Basant Kumar Kanthale & Another VERSUS RESPONDEN-TS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WR!T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri, J. Present: Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 27 day of April, 2010) 1) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction. to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of B.,Ed. examination, on their own expenses, during the course of service. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue invotved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of MP. & Ors.’ as Well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another2 and Gopesh Kumar Verm v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another? 3) Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra). Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation to decide their case in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts. i , i x a Ashok Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners make representations, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with Iaw and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5) In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. /’//l