c s EN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.{S.) NO. gi± /2010 PETITIONER: ^.r^€). .^ir?"" €^9^ Chudamani Patel S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Patel, Aged about 42 years, Assistant Teacher (Science), Govemment Boys Higher Secondary School Baramkela, Block Baraiiikela District-Raigarh (C.G.j VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgajh Through : The Secretary, Tribal Wetfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan; Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, District Raigajh (C.G.jl 3. The District Education Qfficer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ,/ 4} The Principal Government Boys Higher Secondaiy School Baramkela District Raigarh (C.G.j WRIT PETITION UNDER .ACT1CLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS GERTIORARY_0^ ANY QTHER WRIT QF LIKE NATURE ETC. t&Jia—bea^ta^ -ufa^ ^- HIGH,CQURT_QF^CHHATriSGARH^AT_BJLASPUR PETITIQNER WRIT PETITION <8) No. 811 of2010 Chudainam Patel. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofClihattisearh & Oftiers. Writ Petition Under Article 226 OfThe Constitution Ot'India SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K. Asniliotri. J. Present: Shri Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, DeputyO.A. forthe State/responds ORAL ORUER (Passed on 25th day of Febmar^', 2010) With consent, leamed counsel fbrthe parties were heard fmally. 1. By this petitioii, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advanee increments fromthe date ofpassmg ofB.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during his service period. 2. Shri Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved m ths present case is no longer res integra as the saine has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors. as well as 1ay tliis Court in the matter of Yashwant 'Kumcir Bharadv.'aj v. Mimicipal Corporation, Ditrg & anothe^ and Gopesh Kumaf'Verma v. The State Govt. ofChhatt'sgark anc^ anothef . 3. Shri Patel tiirther submits tliat the instant petition is squarely covered by the deeision as aforestated. Thus, tlie petitioner may be pennitted to make ' 2009 (II) MPJE. (SC') 59 ;'2006(II)MPjR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 '^"v^, •^ a representation to decide his case iii the light of albrestated decision, subject to verification oftfae fact asto whether tfie petitioner has acquired B.Ed certificate on his own expenses during tiie course ofhis service. 4. Leanied counsel appearing for fhe State/respondents submits that iii the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, m accordance wifh law and in the liglit ofthe-decisions of tiie Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (siipra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kiimar Bharadwas and GopeshKumar Verma (supra), within a period offour weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. In view offoregoiiig, accordmg to the leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioners, nothing sun'ives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the vwit petition is disposed of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit