,é' 3mm amen OgIW CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHH AT BH‘ASPUR w.p.(s.) N0. gw /Q01o t x ! y \ ‘ \ PETITIOMR: , Sm§1ilomilna Lakia, 13/0 SEI' V i Silliami§H Ekka, Aged about 51 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government Girls Higfler Secondary School Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.} RESPONDENTS 1. /State of Chhattisgarh V Through : The Secretary, School Educatonal Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) K g i 2. The District Education Ogicer, \ g Raigarh, District Raigarh (C,G.) ( ‘ 3. /The Prmcipax Government Girls Higher Secondary School Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (ca) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE coirsm‘urmN or mmA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT 1N NArURE OF MANDAMUS \ CERrromY OR ANY cram WRIT or LIKE NATURE ETC. g l ? ATTISGARH i HxoH mum 0k CHHAT’nsGARH Ar BILASPUR ) WRIT PETITION g3) No 809 ofzmo » l Asha Saxena v. been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in State ofMP. & 0m] as well as by this Court in thematter of YashWant Kumar Bharadwaj v Mumapal Corporatzon, Burg &‘ another; and re Govt ofChhattzsgarh and anather3 sf Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The Sta 3. Shn' Patel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make z - ? ‘ . - r ~‘ ‘ ? 2009 2006 (11) (It) MPJR MPJR (SC) Cd 96 59 3wr(S)No 4130 M2005 l‘ I.‘ .- ‘7 i ‘ #‘ “ i PETHIONéER : Smt. Phnomma Lakra. 1 VERSUS ‘ } , ; , RESPQNDENTS ‘ i ‘ : State of Cmattisgax‘h l8: Others. ‘ ; § . i j Wri‘é Petition Under Article 226 OfThe Cogstitution Of India SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A, otri J.» Shn Dham Ram Patel Advocate tor the petl’uoner ‘ a ‘ Shn M P S Bhatta, Deputy G A. for the State/respondents ORAL ORDER ; (Passed on 25th day of February, 2010) ' t ’\ th consent leamed counsel for the pames were heard ilnally the seeks a dnect1on to the respondents to pay 1. y tins pet1t1on, petltloner two gadvanee Increments horn the date ofpassmg ofD Ed exammatmn on own her service period. his exnenses, during I . hhn Patel learned counsel appearing for the petltloner submits that the / issue involved 1n the present case 1s no longer res mtegra as the same has a? a representahon to dec1de h1s case 1n the 11ghi of aforestated dec1s1on I subject to vermcatlon of the tact asto whether t e petltmner has acqulred D.Ed feftgficate on hls own expenses dunng the lcourse ofher servwe. . Married hounsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the i » evehti th% petitioner makes a representation, thl same will be considered and demded m accordance w1th law and m the Ilght of the dec151ons of the Supreme Court 1n Asha Saxena (supra) as well as th1s Court m L Yashwant Kumar Bharadwa] and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra) W1th1n a penod of tour weeks hem the date of recelpt ofthe representatlon 5. In v1ew of foregomg, accordmg to the learned counsel appearmg for the petmoners nothmg survwes 1n tlns petmon for adJudlcatwn 6 Accordingly, the wrlt pet1t10n 1s dlsposed of Sd/_ ex: Satish K. Agnihotri Judge