SingleB®nch A' ASPUR ,tl<'^..y) c .P. 18} NO.Z033 /2011 Ku. Mona Heeradhar, aged about 41 years, D/o Late Saroj Kuinar Heeradhar, Lecturer, Maharani Laxnii Bai Girls Higher Secondaiy School, Bilaspur (C.G.) \(C'a ^? State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Director Public Instructions, Raipur (C.G.j The District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury Account SE Pension Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Principal, Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur (C.G.j WmT PETSTION U/S 226/227 0£THECONST!TUTION OFINDIA 2. 3. 4. 4 M\I^IV~\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION CS) No. 2039 of2011 Ku. Mona Heeradhar. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri^J, Present: Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) • (Passed on 18th day ofApril, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of B.Ed examination, on her own expenses, during her service period. 2. Shri Pawar, 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 this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwqf v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & another and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanofher . 3. Shri Pawar farther submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted 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 B.Ed certificate on her own expenses during the course ofher service. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be *20^6(II)MPJR-CG96. 2WP(S)No,4l30of2005 -s- -^] •^' '.. ' "^^a .-".^ ^;2;-as^ !%...s^ '' :^.t?K^'i"i considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within aperiod offour weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. In view offoregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit 1 1'Ti r^