C.^ f<^/, s. T IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.t .166G/2mn WRIT PETITIONL(S) N0.' 72010 4. PETITIONER A^- ^>'^^-"" ..^^' r^" : Vinay Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Shri Ramakant Pandey, aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher / Teacher, Carmel Girls Higher Secondary School Raigarh [C.G.] V^ISUS ^••' RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] 2. Director, Public Instructions Pension Bada Raipur [C.G.] 3. District Education Raigarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Offices ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiia^. HjtQtiCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S\ Ho. 1086 of201j0 PETITIONER : VinayKumarPandey. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State crfGhhattisgarh & Others. WmLPET!TlQNUNDERARTieLE 226 OF THEtQNSTITUTIONOFJNDjA SB: Hon'ble Shri SatishK Aaniholri. J. Present: Shri AnupMi Dubey, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri PX.Bhadurs, Panel Lawyer fortheBtate/respondente. 1 ORALORDER (Passed on 15th day <rf March, 2010) With the consent of learned couns®!for the parties, fw matter is heard finally. By this petttion, the petitiQner seeks a direction to the respmclents to pBy two advance increments on account of pasaing B.Ed ^camtnation, on his own expenses, prior to jbining of his serviGe. 2. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petittoner submite that the issue involved in the present case is no longer J'BS wf^ra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court 'mAshaSaxena K State of M.P. & Ors. as wetl as by this Court in the matteF of YQshwant Kumar Bhsa'adwaj v. MunicipQt€wpora^^,Dwg& anoffw^. _ 3. Shri Dubey further submite that tha insteitt petition is squarely oovered by tbe decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitktnep roay b&pwjnittedl te make a representation to the respondent auUiorities tp cteMside his ease for grant of two incremente in the light of aforestated d»cteion,subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitfoner has ac€|ui dB.Ed certifieate on his own expenses priortojou'iing of hissenifee. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondente submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representatioii, tfae same wilt be considered and decided, in a<axydance with law and in ttwa Ught of the dedsions of the Supretne Court in Asha SaxBna ^upm}o^w^ ^^ ^^ Court in Yashvwnt Kumar Bharaciwaj (supm), within a period of fpur weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survivess in this petition for adjucUcation. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed oi -^- 12009(III)MPJR(SC)59 22006(II)MPJR-C096 Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge