< cA-\^^t ^KKS f '^8 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.f5)NO. ^-°)^ /2011 / PETCTCONER ^ / .^M€^ ^^•y- ti' > '' ,»' RESPONDENTS VER5US 1. r" 2. Dilharan Lal Suryavanshi S/o Shri Sheetal Prasad, aged about 41 years, Working as Upper Division Teacher 6ovt. Middle School, Dhunchapur, Block Podi-Uproda, District Korba (C.6.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.(5.) 3. ^ Assistant Commissioner, Tn'bal Welfare Department, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.6.) 4.'^" Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension Korba, Distt. Korba (C.6.) WRIT PETCTCON UN&ER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under;- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETCTCONER As mentioned in the Cause title. ---.-""".^^E~. •'Sii*.. ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETlTtONER RESPONDENTS PETIT10N ?S) N0. 790 QF 2011 Dilharan Lai Suryavanshi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAD (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard tearned counsel for the parties. 2. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petit'ioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petltioner has passed B.T.I. examination in the year 1991 before entering into the service i.e. on 26.06.1993, at his own cost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the presentcase is no longer res Integra, as the same has been corisidered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P...& O.is. as wel! as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anoths^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chha ,sgarh and anothe!3. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permltted to make a representation to decide his case in the :2009(111)MPJR(SC)59 22006(11) MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 ^ y f ashok ? light of aforestated decisions, subject to veriflcation of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.i. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation; the same wilt be considered and decided; in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. !n view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing forthe petitloner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 7. Accordinalv, She writ petition is disposed of. - - ./'" Satish K. AgBihotri Judge