GD (/7?\5v1‘ $§§§§§LE BE§€QH IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) No. écblé OF 2010 W Gajendra Kumar Dubey Son of Shri Nandeshwar Dubey, aged about 40 years, Working as an Assistant Teacher, Primary School Motinagar, Block Kusmi, District Surguja (C.'G.), Resident of Kusmi, District Surguja (C.G.). PETITIONER “P” ,l mT z‘: 71/1 ‘w‘é‘ VERSUS 1. f;- State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Tribal Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS The Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector (Tribal Development), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). (a The Block Education Officer, Kusmi, District Surguja (C.G.). z WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI No. 6926 of 2010 PETITIONERS : Gajendra Kumar Dubey. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 29‘“ day of November, 2010) 1. By this petition. the petitioner seek a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.T.I. examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 ofMP. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in the matter of Vashwant Kumar Bharadwaj V. Mun/cipa/ Corporal/0n, Durg & rename/2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma V. 7779 State Govt. ofC/maz‘t/sgarh andanolhe/‘g , 3. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner 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 verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the. State/respondents submits. that in the event, the petitioner maKes’atepresentation, 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 Bharadwajand 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 petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 7/,“1‘ 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of; d]- Satish K. Agnihotri] Judge Amit I 2009 (In) MPIR (so) 59 Z 2006 (11) MPJR-co 96 3 WP(S) No. 4130 of2005