y^^ < -.--•"]&-vv'^.^ -.-•*".<*.<WI.-'-'" ^yy^ ^^ c i-'\.&l?/ ^^:.. ^••-"' yfy IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. &^3/20Q9 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ UmaShanker Naik S/o Narayan Prasad Naik aged about 39 years, Head Master Govt. Primary School, F'ujeripali, Block- Dabhara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS /1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^-2. The District Education OfEcer, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) /3. The Block Education Officer, Block- Dabhara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HK3HCQUKF QE CHHAa'FfiSQjWH ATBILASPUR - ;OTaTPETm©NfSyNo.<5608 of2)09 PE'EmONER RESPONDENTS Uma Shanker Naik. :VERSUS State ofCIihattuearh & Othera. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE GONSEITUTION OF INDIA SS:a»n'hleShriSati^hK;Affnihutri.J. I^^ > SImAiulAAnnya, AdvcK^^fe Shri A.'V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerfor fhe State/respondeirts. ORDER«^AU (Passedon lltlldayof Noveniba, 2009) Heaed iMined counsel fw theparti^. 1, By tiiis petitiona the petitioner seeks a ditection totlie respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D.Ed examination, onrhis own e3q)enses^duriag his serviceperiod. \ 2. Shri Mourya, leamed counsel appearing for the petitionar subnrits that fhe issue involved in the ipresent ease is w> losgeT res integra as ibe same has lieen 'T ' _„ • _ .; . " eonsidered and decided byQnaCcimtisibsmattetofYasK'wantKtmiarBharadviaj v.Munic'pat Corpwtttian, Durg and anothe/ taAGopesh KsMar Verma v.The '' StciteGtfyt.vfChhattisfflrhandanathef^. " • 3. Shri Mourya fwrther submits that the instant petition is squately eoveted by the decision. as aforestated. Thus. the pstitioner may be peraritted to ma&e a representation to decide her ease in the li^it of aforestated deeision, subjeet to esverffieation ofthe factasto •whetherthe petitioaerhas acquit'ed D.Ed eeltiScate on his own expenses during the course ofhis service. 4; Leamed eounsel appearina for the State/respoadents sabnuts that in the evaifc the petitioner makes a represaitation, the same will be consideaed and deeided, in aecordance withJaw and in tfae light ofthe decision oftfiis Covatm Tashwint Kwnar Bharad-waj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (sttpra), within a period offour weeks from the date ofreceipt offhe re{»e8entation. 5. In view offoregoing, aecording to the learned conisel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives inlhis petition for adjudieatiwi. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is diaposed of, SatishK.Agnihotri Judge r200&(u)MPIRCa,9& ,; ISP(S)No.413ftof 2005 Thi