^' .-< (lj3-\-^6 S.B. (Service Matteri IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR »; (CHHATnSGARHl WRITPETITION (S) N0. U3Dl20\.Q. PETITIONER: Devendra Kashyap, son of Late Thakur Ram Kashyap, aged about 49 years, presently working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt.Middle School, vUlage BundeU, Block Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. versus Resoondents ^ ..•«'/0/ rf^ ^,; ,/^ <^ -•^- 1-' ^? 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. District Education Officer, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .1- Petitfoner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: Bit^S'UR WRIT PETITtON (S) N0.1630fi01Q Devendra Kashyap Vereus Respondwds Sfate of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF JHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA Singie Bench: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present- Shri C.J.K.Rao,counselforthepetitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for ths State. ORALORPER (Passed on this 12*' of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the n^pondettts to pey two advance increments on passing of D.Ed examinatton, on his own expenses, during the couree of his servfce. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer restntywasVhe same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State af M.P. & Ofs. as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Mwteipal CorporaSon, Dwg & anolhef and Gopesh Kwnar Venna v. The State Govt ofChhattsgarh andanottief. 3. Learned counsel further submfts that ttie indant petition is squerely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petttioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities to decide his case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject to vertfication of the fact astb whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. certificate on his own expenses during the course of his servfce. 4. Learned counsel ap! aring for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the seme wili be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supia) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar BharadvmjavA Gopesh Kwnv Verma (supfs), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representetion. 5. !n view of foregoing, according to the teamed counset appearing for the petitionens, nothing survives in this petition for adjudicatun. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ' 2009 ail) MPJR~(SC) 59 22006(II)MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge