WycY/ GD IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOMS) No. H37 /2o11 PETITIONER / Ku. Laxmin Rathore D/o' Shri Makhan Lal Rathore aged about 34 years Head Master Govt. Primary School, Asonda Block— Sakti, District— Janjgir-Champa (co) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Departmerit of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . The District Education Officer, District- Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) . The Block Education Officer, Block- Sakti, District— Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ 3 WRIT PETITION (S) No. 168 0f2011 PETITIONER : Ku. Laxmin Rathore. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Batik, Advocate for the petitioner. §hri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 13 day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D,.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during his service period. Shri Barik, leamed 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 by Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofMP. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in the this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. ofChham'sgarh and another3 . 3. Shri Barik further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions as aforestated Thus, the petitioner may be permitted 1 2009 (n) MPIR (SC) 59 z 2006 (11) MPJR CG 96 3 WP (S) No.4130 of 2005 . to make a representation to decide his case in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed certificate on his own expenses during the course of his service. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner make a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light ofthe decision of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks ham the date of receipt ofthe representation. 5. In View of foregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit .