@ ^ C<? ^CT^ /^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. \5^\\ PF 2010. PETITIONERS :!.' fe' ^0/: \^":/ ^ Ku. Sunita Shrivastava, (Now Smt. Sunita Pandey) W/o. Ashok Kuinar Pandey, aged about 46 years, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School (Sector -9) Hospital ,Sector Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District Durg, (C. G.) \- K°^ ;^^?-"" ^"^T" .^••::^¥ 2. ^^,.&. '^' .-,k^ RESPONDENTS •""'raMft^' /<A^T^%X ,<;^^-^^ Ajay Kumar Sen Choudhary, S/o. late Shri A. K. Sen Choudhary, aged about 46 years, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Gunderdehi, Durg, District Durg, (C. G.) yERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) v^"' 2, District Education Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C. G.) 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury, Account and Pension Durg, Distt. Durg (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1e) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1541 OF 2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Ku. Sunita Shirvastava & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 9th day ofApril, 2010) 1) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of B.Ed. examination, on their own expenses, before entering into service. 2) 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 Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors. as welt as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another3. 3) Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra) as aforestated. Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to make representations to 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 wri ^ decide their respective cases in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners make representations, 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 Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receiptofthe representation. 5) In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge