@7 wag gamw / 0% WV BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.(s1 No é 9 W OF 2010 \ PETITINOER /’ l. Dhal Chand Bharti, S/ o Shri Ramkhilavan Bharti, aged about 43 years, Head Master, Govt. primary School, Kutelikala Block Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Madhusudan Dheshlahre, S/o Shri Shadhuram Dheshlahre, aged about 42 years, Head Master, Govt. . primary School, Baiktori Block Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through Secretary Education Department D.K. S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ,, 2 Distric Education officer Rajnandgaon (C. G.) WRIT PETITON /UN13ER‘ ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 0% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S_) No. 6914 of 2010 PETITIONERS : Dhal Chand Bh atti & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma. Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 29‘ day of November, 2010) . 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.T.l. examination, on their own expenses, before entering into service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 Couit in Asha Saxena v. State ofMP. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & anotherz and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another? . 3. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities to decide their case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioners have acquired B.T.l. certificate on their own expenses before entering into Service . 4. Learned counsel appearirfg‘for‘the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioners make a representation, the same will be considered and‘decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharaa’waj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. r 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. e// Sdl- Satish Amit K. Agnihotr‘} Judge 1 2009 (HI) MPIR (so) 59 2 2006 (H) MPJR-CG 96 3 WP(S) No. 4130 of2005 .