@§ / I SB. (Service Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1CHHATTISGARH) WRITPETITION(S)N0;2£/o /201o. ggmzit Eggmggm 'Qg v’ PETITIONER: Smt. Jeevan Kumari Toppo, wife of Zacharis Toppo, aged about 45 years, working as Asst. Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Sarangdand, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur’, Chhattisgarh. versus / _1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. (District Education Officer, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. f 3. Block Education Ofmzer, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Respondents .WRIT PETITION QNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.286 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Jeevan Kumar Toppo Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ' ORDER ORAL v (Passed on this 23r- day of April, 201 0) 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of’ B.Ed. examination, on her own expenses, before entering into 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 MP. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anotherz 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 decide her case a 1 2009 (lll) MPJR (SC) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 {WP (S) No.41 3O of 2005 I Gowri in the Iight of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts. 4) ‘Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be conSidered and decided, in accordance with law and in the Iight 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), within a period of six 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. “fa.“ _, / Sdl- /‘ sATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge r z