o 'f i^ S.B. (Service Matterl IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. 1$l^ /2010.'" PETITIONER: Arvind Kumar Gupta, son of Shankar Prasad Gupta, aged about 36 years, working as Asst Teacher at Govt Primary School, Chorha Sighanpuri, Block Takhatpur, Distdct Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ^ Respondents ^£/ <yMfv Y'c^ ^/^>/ /' .< y! ^\/ ^^ •^'- ,^ ^'..:/•' y " <:i /' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F^Ba ^c Amit/Arun Petitioner Respondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1519 of 2010 Arvind Kumar Gupta Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri Ashwani Shukla & Shri J.K. Saxena, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate with Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 8tn Day of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during the course of service. 2. Learned 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 the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors.^ as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj K Municipal Corporation, Durg & anothei2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanothep . 3. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities to decide his case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light ofthe decisions ofthe Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Q^\6 Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), >N\^\\\\ a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the 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. s<^- .. _ SatishK.A6"'hot" Judge 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 22006(11)'MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005