ef/ LW mm amm IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.1smo. HHé mom; a“, PETITIONER : Ajay Masih, S/o Ishak Masih, aged about 39 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Parmal Kasha, Distt. Rajnandgaon (cs) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1f State of Chhattisgarh Through :— The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 446 0f2011 PETITIONER : Ajay Masih. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Venna, Advocate for the petitioner. v Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 25 day of January, 201 1) . By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on account ofpassing B.Ed. examination: on his own expenses, during the course ofhis service. i Shri Verma, leamed 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 Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in the this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another} and Gopesh Kzrmar Verma v. The State Govt. ofChhattisgarh and another3 . . Shri Verma further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner ‘ 2009 (m) MPJR (SC) 59 l 2005 (Ir) MPJR CG 96 3 WP (S) No.413o of 2005 2,2/ 2 has acquired B.Ed certificate on his own expenses during the course of his service. 4. Leamed 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 ()fthe decision of Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (sapra), Within a period of four weeks &om the date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view offoregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/é Satish K. Agnihotri Judge