:i.1Service .cilaitci i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGASH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl WRIT PETJTION (S) N0. 1-3-^ /2010. ^Ss.s'^s-r' Rpwr'i Sa-S'^^'i PETITJONER: Ramprasad Khare, son of L.P.Khare, aged about 45 years, working as Lecturer at Govt. Higher Secondaiy Sehool Kaudikasa, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents l0 /2)<° .^%'r---- ^^.•/%0 ..•-'' ^^/ ^.w.''"' ^ l-l?'"^ l?'3»'i ^--' ;:";' . -^" /a^ ^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throi^h Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, i . liaipur, Chhattisgarli. 2. CoiqHussion^c, Tribal WeUare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /- 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal WeUare Department, Rajnandgaon, Chhatdsgarh. ^ 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTrrUTION OP INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentaoned ia the Cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As inentioned in the Cause title. ^ 3. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAmST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE/ SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF. v& •^ HIGM COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BIIASPUR WRITPETITiON(S) No. 1266 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : Ramprasad Khare. VERSUS : State of ChhatUsgarti & Others. Writ PetiUon Under Artide 226 Of The Constitution Of Indla SB: Hon'bte ShriSatish K. Aanihobt, J, ^L/' Present Shri C.J.KRao, AdvocatB forthe petlttoner. Shrt P.K-Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respmdents. ORALORDER (Passed on 26* day of March. 2010) Wlth the consent of teamed counsel tor the parttes, ttie m^ter Is heant finally. 1. By ttiis peUtim, the petltioner seeks a dlrection to the responctente to pay two advance increments on passing aS B.Ed. examinatun, on his own expenses, b^ore entering into service. 2. Leamed counsel appearlf^ tbr the petiUoner submlts that ttie issue invotved In the present case is no tonger res integiass the same has been consldeied and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxeia v. StataofM-P.S O/a aswell as by Uiis Court In the matter of Ya^iwant Kumar Bhaiadwaj v. Mwitepal Corpoiaflon, Duig & ancffief and Gopash Kumar Vwma v. The Stste Govt of ChhaS'^arij andanotheP. 3. Shri Rao further submits that the instant p^lUon is squaiely coveied by the declsion as aforestated. Thus, the petifioner may be permBted to malce a represenlafion <D the respondent authoriUes te) decide his case for gant of two increments in the light <rf aforestated decision, subject to veriteaflcm of the fact asto whettier the peflttoner has acquired B.Ed. certiflcate cn his own escpenses ti^ose entering into service. 4. Leamed counsel appeanng for the SlatB/res|xmdents atbmBs that in U»event, the pefitioner mates a representatiwi, the same will be considered and decided, in accoidance wHh law and in ttw l^ht of the decistorre of ttie Supreme Court in Adia Saxena (stfia) as well as ttiis Court in Yashwant Kumar BhaiadwaJ and Gcywh Kumar Verma (swia), wtthin a period of four weeks from Uie date of receipt of the representatton. 5. In vtew of fofegoiry, accoiding to the teamed counset awiearing for ttie peBtioner, nothing survives in thls petilton tora^idicaUon. 6. Accordlngly, Uie writ p^ition is cBsposed of, ^^»-" Satte' 5udS® '2009(III)MPJR(SC)59 22006-gi)MPJR-C096 3WP(S)No.4130of200j iniii'ii!