<l^\^r^ §3i IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(SINO. "7^_A /2010(S.B.| PETITIONER ^^ -^"^" y ^ RBSPONDENTS Kuldeep Kujur, S/o Late Norbetus Kujur, aged about 50 years, Head Master, Working as Middle School, Alori, Block & Tahsil Manora, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS ^" : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Manora, Block- Manora, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) ^' 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury, Account & Pension Jashpur, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A. HiGH,COURT:_gFCHHATTISGARH:iBS|^SPUR pEmoNm RESPONDENTS WRiT PETiTION (S) N0.726]'OF 2010 Kuideep Kujur Versus - State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArtlcle 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Sinate Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri; J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei LawyerfortheState. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on thls 19th day of February, 201'0) 1) With the consent of ieamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petition Is heard finaliy. 2) 'By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the.date of passing of B.Ed examlnation, on his own expenses, before enterlng into service. . 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue InvoSved in the present case Is nolonger res integra as the same has been considered and dedded by the .Supreme Courtln Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & 0/s.f as well'as by thls Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharsdwaj v. Mwicipai Corporatlon, Durg and anothef2 and Gopesh Kumar Veuna v. The Stste Govf. of Chhaftisgarh and anotiie'r3. 4) Learned counsei further submits that the instant petjtion is squareiy covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the 1-2009.(!ii)MPJR(SC)59 2 2006 (ii) MPJR-CG 96 3WP(S)"NQ.4130of2005 A J- Amit/ Gowri petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to declde his case in the light of aforestated declsions, subject to veriflcatson of the facts. 5) Learned counse! appearing for the State submsts that in the event, the petitloner makes a representation, the same wi'll be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw and in the iight of the decisions of the Supreme Court In Ashs Saxena (supra) as weli as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a perlod of four weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation. 6) In view of foregolng, accordlng to the Searned coynsel appearing for the petltloner, nothing sun/iv.es in this petition for adjudication. 7) Accordingly, the writ petitlon Is disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge