t^g^^ ^ ^^-1 IN THEJIIGH^QURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. ^(9^/2009 PETITIONER ^y^ Aa'A--" RESPONDENTS Karan Singh Shyain S/o Itwar Singh Shyam about 46 years, Head Master Govt. Middle School, Korbi, Block- Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS f^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary School , Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer, Block- Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -t-i mOH COURT QF CHHATTISGARIIATBILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6604 of 2009 Karan Singh Shyam. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Ashwani Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. QRDERLQRAL) (Passed on 11th day of November, 2009) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments irom the date of passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during his service period. 2. Shri Shukla, 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 Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. ofChhattisgarh and another . 3. Shri Shukla further submits that the instant ]-etition is squarely covered by fhe 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 ofthe fact asto whefher the petitioner has acquired D.Ed certificate on his own expenses during fhe course ofhis service. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for theState/respondeuts submits that in the event, the petitioner make a representation, the same will be considered and decided, m accordance with law and in the light of the decision of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe 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/. Satish K. Agnihptri Judge ' 2006 (II) MPJR CG 96 2WP(S)No.4130of2005