IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ()iF CHHATTISGAR V E ATBILASPUR i W.P.(S.)' No. gag @010 x a sureshram Bafragi S'/’o Late Ramdayal Bauagl, Aged about 4 years Lecturer Government Mult H1 her Second School a” Sarangarh, District—Rajgarh (C.G.) ‘ f PETITIONER: VERSUS REsPoNDEN State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Educatonal‘ Departmen D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. (me District Education omcer, Raigarh, District Ratigarh (cc) / 3. _ The Principal Government Mult Higher Sarangarh, (C.G.) r Secondary School District—Raigarh OSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN \ NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY _ , ‘ x OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC The V Detifinn 9"" l H 6 Ts t CN HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARHIAT BILAS { WRIT PETITION (S) No. 808 of 2010 > PETITIONER ' : Sureshram Bairagi. l VERSUS RESEONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. I i 1 Writ Petmon Under Artlcle 226 Of The Constltutmn Of Indla J I l I I SB Hon’hle Shn Satlsh K Agmhotrl, Present: § Shri Dhani Ram Fatel, AdvOcate for the' petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. for the State/respendents. ORAL ORDER (Passed 0n 25th day af February, 2010) With: consent, learned counsel for the parties were heard finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date ofpassing ofBiEd examination, on his own expenses, during his service period. 2. Shn' Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that th ~, e issue invblved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Swcena v. State ofMP. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwcmt Kumar Bhamdwaj v. ll/funicipai Corporation, Durg d’c another; and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. I The State Govt. ofChhattisgarh and another’ . 3. Shri :Patel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make t X ‘ 2009 (II) MPJR (so) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR‘+CG 96 . 3 W?(S) No.24130 of2005 I T PUR $ ‘ a rep1 esentanon to decide his case in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verlfwauon of the faut asto whather th petitioner has acquired ’B Ed cemhcate on his own expemes durmg the c urse of his service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event the ;pet1t10ner makes I I ‘ i a representation, the {same W111 be cons1dered ‘ 1 \ and dec1ded m accordance W1th law and 1n the light of the decis1ons of i i the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena (supra) as well as thls Court 1n YashWant Kumar Bhctradwa; and Gapesh Kumar Verma (supra) wrthrn a ‘ period ofifour weeks horn the date 0t receipt ofthe representatlon. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the etitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. ’ ccngy, th writ petion did o. Sd/_ “for. ,..\ n ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I ‘1 p 6 Aordil ' e ti is spose f l f