6); w Wa @ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. S N0. 12010 SEE‘mLE 3mm N%han Prasad Hotta Slo dhaneshwar Prasad hotta aged about gi/?ears Asst. teacher R/o janpad prathmik shala balq5har Parishetra Uttar pattalgoan DisstRm'gmMCG.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1/ State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department D.K.S. Bhawm, Raipm' (C.G.) PETITIONER / 2. Block education ofm‘er, Raigarh DisttRaigarh (C.G) 3.’ Distt.education officer, Raigarh DisttRaigarh (C.G) 4f Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension Raigarh DisttRaigarh (C.G) K m“) t, z WRIT PETITION UIA 226x227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WRIT PETITION {S} NO.1319 OF 2010 PETlTlONER A Mohan Prasad Hotta RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia) Singie Bench 2 Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR v Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Present :- Shn Deepak Jam Advocate forthe petitioner Shn A.V. Srldhar Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29‘“ day of March 201 D) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the partiee,_ A the petition is heard finally. 2)7 By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the: respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of '. passing of B.T.l.. examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res fntegra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme . ' Court in Ashe Saxena v. State oft/LP. & Ols.’ as welt as by this - Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v_ Municipal Corporation; a — Durg and, anotherz and Gopesh Kama! Verma v. The State ‘ ‘ Govt. of Chhatfisgarh and another? V3) 1 2009 (In) MPJRfSC) 59 2 2006 ii) MPJR—CG 96 a WP (S) No 4‘! 3O of 2005 , Learned counsel further submite'that the instant petit‘ion’is - squarely covered by the decisions (supra) as afotestated. 'Thus; , the petitioner may be permitted to make a’representa‘tion to 2?‘ decide his case in the tight of aforestated decisions, subject to verificationof the facts. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the v s event, the petitioner makes a representations, the same wiil be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light \ of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha ‘Saxena (supra), v as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kamar Vanna (supra), within a period [of six weeks ‘ ’ from the date of receiptof the representation. ln view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this=petition for g adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. _ i Gowri f1 Sdl— sATtsn K. AGNIiiOTN - Judge . ,5)