W7 WRIT PETXTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ON O? ENDEA FQR ESSUANCE QF APPRQPREATE nun“ w x\;;, {‘uxxhLé’B ,1; uuix \JLx “uni L4 u§eE t W CD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.§r_.1 WRIT PETITION (s1 No. SS3 i} /2oo9 Sn PETITIONER r Surendra Kumar Gupta S/o 1ate g Bhogllal Gupta Aged—about 45 years, Hlgher ”i1 Asslstant tecaher, Government Secondary School, Kodatarai, Block— \ Pusoure, Distt.— Raigarh [C.G.} ‘ VERSUS; ‘ Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS 1 .State of 1/- VThrough? Secretary, School i education department, D.K.S. i Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] ' ' 2‘ Jomt D1rector k Treasunes accounts and pensmn, 1"; Bi1aspur {co} k w 3. District Education Offxcer Raigarh Distt— Raigaxh{c.o.] ‘ 4 Prlnc1pa1 ‘ Government H1gher Secondary School a Kodataral, I Block- Pussoure, Dlstt F I Raigarh [C.G.] HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5597 OF 2009 PETITIONER Surendra Kumar Gupta Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. A ‘ Present :— Shri D.R. Patel, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyer forthe State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 9m day of May, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsei for the parties. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted two advance increments on account ofkacquisition of B.Ed. degree, during service. However, after some time the same was withdrawn by order dated 29-6-2009 (Annexure — P/6) without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is bad, vitiated, being 'not in consonance with the principles of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions. (See : Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and othersl, Vidyadhar Tiwari' v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz, Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of MP, (Now State of Chhatt/sgarh) and others3 and Ramchandra Kurup v. State of CG. & Others4). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the recovery as ordered earlier has already been cancelled by order dated 24-9-2010 (Annexure — R/i) and the same shall be restored to the petitioner. Thus, nothing survives'in this petition for adjudication. 4. In view of clear and unambiguous statement made by the learned counsel for the State on the basis of the return, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ' Sdl- l, l'satishKAgnthmri , ,. r Judge I l . . v \ #Ji_4t 11995 Supp (1) scc 18 2 2006(1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHTm (CG) 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400