^^)y?$^_ ^ RESPONDENTS ^ ^••1 y AP/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) No. ^1^/2010 Ramkrishana Pandey S/o PETITIONER Tripati Prasad Pandey aged about 60 years, Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School, Mudpar, Block- Nawagrah, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer, Block- Nawagrah, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :'^} ^-,^.>-' Amit/Arun ^\ Petitioner Respondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1516 of 2010 Ramkrishana Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri Ashwani Shukla & Shri J.K. Saxena, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate with Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER fORAU (Passed on 8th Day ofApril, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during the course of 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 of MP. & Ors.1 as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar BharadwaJ v, Municipal Corporation, Durg & anothef2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanothei3. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to mak6 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 D.Ed. 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 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 Bharadwaj Qr\d 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. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition js disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 22006(11)'MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005