S.B. fService Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl WFUT PETITION (S) N0. <2° ^/2011. PETITIONER: Florence Baxla, son ofAlphonc Baxla, aged about 44 years, AsstTeacher, Pnfcmary School Telupara, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents l./^State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary E^lucation Departinent, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /' ^. o \.-' \^^. ^ .•••'-o'-' .-••' vj^ /%<y ../^' ..<"^ .^y.<y v * ^'•' ^J"' 2. District Education Officer, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Block Education Officer, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (' 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •»' S.«!, «:B.9i&Jk 1 S. <v,ff^-^ ^^/ PAKTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As nientioned in the Cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mendoned in the Cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE/ SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF. \B HiGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH ; BiLASPUR WRO" PEin'!QN_(SINQ.207Q_OFJ011 'ETITsONER Fiorence Sax'a Vsrsus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Kon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Harish Khuntiy'a, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish.Gupta, Govl. Advocate for the State. 4. o. SDER (Passed on this 20 day of April, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submlts that the petitioner is entiiled io benefit of Swo advancs increments on account of the fact that he has passed D.Ed. examination in June, 2008, during the course of hls sen/ice, at his own cost. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no ionger ,'es integra, as the same has been considered and decided by this Court in \ashwani Kumar Bharacfwaj v. Miinidpal Cprporation, Dwg and anoihe^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhaffisgarh and anothe^. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in •the light of aforestated decisions. Leamed couhsel appearing for the State submits that in t'n®event, the petitioner make a representation, the same wili be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light ofthe decisioris ofthis Court in Yashwani' Kiimar Bharadwaj (supra), within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, subject to "eriflcation of t'ne facts. In view offoreaoina, accordina to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingiy, the writ petition Is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2006 (li) MPJR-CG96 ^ WP SS'! N".4130 of 2005