^^^^ S.B. fSendce Matteri IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSG^ARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGAKH) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. /6^/ w^t 2010. PETITIONER: Rajesh Rai, son of K.K.Roy, aged about 47 years, Presently Workmg as Head Master, Govt. Girls Middle School, Balco Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. versus <& Resoondents ^w^ ^^'w A^ "s ^y .{j' / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Departanent, D.K-S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. District Education Officer, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFLINDIA 'S •/7•'7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) N0.162S/2010 Rajesh Raj Petitjpner Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA Singie Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present- Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel LawyerfortheState. ORALORDEP (Pamed on this 12ln of Aprit, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seete a direction to the nespondents to pay two advance increments on passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during the course of hisservice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petrtioner suteniis that the (ssue invoived in the present case is no longw resfnte^raasVtw samehas been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. Stata af M.P. & Ors. as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bhaiadwaj v. Municipat CorpoiaSon, Durg & enottf«zand Qopesh Kumar Varma v. TheState Govt of ChhaUisgwh and anotiief. 3. Leamed counsei further submits that the instant prtifon is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities to decide his case for grant of two incremente in the light-of aforastated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. certiflcate on his own ©(pensesduring the couree ot his service. 4. Leamed counse! appearing for the Statefrespondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the sam®wili be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the tight of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra)as well as ftis Court in Yashwant Kunwr-Bharadwaj an6 Gopesh Kwnar Veifna (supm), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt crf the representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitionera, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. .6. Accordingly, ths writ petition is disposed of. , —^———— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2009 (III) MPJB. (SC) 59 22006(II)MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005