HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1937 OF 2010 (Writ Petition under Atticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 26‘“ day of April, 201 O) 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of B.T.l. examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no Ionger res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of MP. & Ors.7 as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothers and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another". .Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra). Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to 7 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 8 2006 (Ii) MPJR-CG 96 9 WP (S) No.4130 of 2005 ‘ PETITIONER Banshi Lal Nagbanshi Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others "1? ( 4% $¥mw§uw4¢ «2; decide her case in the light of aforestated decisions, subjéct to verification of the facts. Leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representations, the same wiil be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra) wrthm a period of srx 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri u“ ‘ V SAT