IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH a AT BILASPUR 1w.P. (S) No. .§»>f§9....1...(20111 PETITIONERS /: Dubey Pra$ad S/o Ronha Ram; aged about'48 year; R/o — Village 4 Karra; Post — Karra, Rajpur; Distt. — Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh . ”Through :-- The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Tribal Welfare Department, Surguja, Distt. — Surguja (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block — Rajpur Distt. — Surguja (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Treasury 'Account 8L Pension Surguja; Distt. — Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 IGH COURT OF CHHA?T}SGARH I @LASPUR WET PETiTiON (S) NO24QG OF IQQ’H _ s i i i I ‘ ETmONER Qabev Iairasari D Versus > Staie 0f f3hha’msgafh: & Others I RESPONDENT$ {Writ Pe*ition under Articb 226 of the ConsJi'mtion of India) Smuie Bencn don ble Shrx Sat2sh K Agmhorr; J Present ,- , 5hr; Mamsh Upadhyay, Advocate for theé petmoner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate Genera! for the state. QRDER (ORAL) (Daseed on We “5'" day cf May 701 1) Heard ieamed eonnsei fer the parties. Learned counee! appearing for ghe petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitied to benefit of {We advance increments 0n account of the fact that he has passed B Ed examination en 15 06 2009 during the course of his servrce at his own cost Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no ionger res integra, as the same has been oonsidered and decided by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhareowaj v. Municipal Corporation, Darg‘ and another" and Gopesh Kama! i/erma v. The State Govt, of Chhattisgarh and anothef. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the Iight of aforestated decisions. Learned counset appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner [make a representation, the same wiil be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw and inthe tight of the decisions of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bnaradwaj (supra) within a period ot si weeks from the date of receipt or the representation subject to venficatron of the facts in View of foregomg, according to the teamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 8. Accordingly, the writpetition is disposed of. r Satish K. Agnihotri J‘ Judge _ I r S K l L ashok ie—rsf' l ‘ 2006 (ii) MPJR CG gt) 2 WP (S) No 41 3O o: 2000 ,1 H x \\