^ u S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE^HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^6^6/2010. iS PETITIONER: Rajeev Saxena, son of Ramesh Chandra Saxena, aged about 37 years, working as Upper Division Teacher at Govt.Middle School, Belpan, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents -c^v^ ^^ ytf'/^ /y^ ^p' ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PetiUoner HIGH COUfCT W CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITION tSVNO.ISWyZOIO Rajeev Saxena Versus Respondents State (rfChhatUsgarh and othere WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTn-UTION OF INDJA Singte Bench: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present- Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the Stete. ORALORDER (Passed on this 12n of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seete a directton to the respondents te pay two advance increments on passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during the coura®of his service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sutmits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer resifitegrassi the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in /teha Saxana v. Stateaf M.P. S 0/s. as well as by this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kunaar Bharadvmj v. Munteipal Cwporatton, Durg & anathe^ and Qopesh Kumar Verma v. TheState Qovt. afChhattsgarh andancShef. 3. Learned counsei further submits that the instant petition is squareiy 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 incr»nents in the light of aforestated deeision, subject to verifteation of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired --D.Ed. certfficate on his own expenses during the course of his service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wiN be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the . Supreme Court in As/fe Saxena (supra) as weil as this Court in Yashwant - Kumer Bhaiadwaj ami Gopesh Kumar Veima (suara), 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 petitionera, nothing survives in this petition for adjudtoation. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '2009(HOMPJR(SC)59 22006(D)MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005