^^•^ r^ d^- v 5 S.B. (Service Mattert IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl WRIT PETITION tS\ NOJ ^ 35^ /2010. PETITIONER: ^mtShakuntalaYadav/wife of Narendra Yadav, aged about 43 years, working as Asst. Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Beltari, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents <°^ ?)49>' \< ?'\Q..' ^.w >^.-"^ •^y 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. ^. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury / and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Amit/Arun <2- (. Petitioner Respondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1535 of2010 Smt. Shakuntala Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri Ashwani Shukla & Shri J.K. Saxena, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate with Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 8tn Day of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during the course of service. 2. Learned 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 the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors.^ as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & anothei2 w\^ Gopesh Kumar Verma v. TheState Govt. of Chhattisgarhand anothei3. 3. Learned cbunsel further submits that the instant petition 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 increments 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 before entering into service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaf and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- .. . SatishK.Agnihom Judge 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 22006(11)'MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005