IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH "t AT BILASPUR w.p.fs^NO. ^\<\ "aoio SiNCiLE ^SSf -, Bissny- ^ ^ <ftT^ PETITIONER Yadunandan Das Vaisanav S/o S/o Narayan Das Vaisanav Aged «• about ^4 years Uppar Division teacher Govemment School Tamta, Vikas khand- Pattha]gaon DisttJashpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS \^ 1^.. .-' ^>^/'^": ^tf<0' 1. State of Chhattisgffl-h tln-ough Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioiier Tribal Welfee Jashpur Distt.Jashpur(C.G.) 3^ Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Distt.Jashpur(C.G. Jasfapur il. Joint Director, Treasury Accozmt & Pension Jashpur Distt.Jashpm(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226^27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^n. ^ -I- ^§;• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon^bl^Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra WritPetition (S.) No.1151 of 2010 Petitioner Respondents versus Yadunandan Das Vaisanav State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution ofLndia ORAL ORDER (Passedon 15th April, 2011) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally and disposed of. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay him two advance increments from the date of passing of B.T.1. Examination, which was passed on his own expenses during his service period. < 3. 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Saxena vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another, 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 ^\ y . .. % ^..^^S'v ^ '"'^^•' .{'> .^ynfy-^''"" and Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another \r\ Writ Petition (S.) No.4310 of2005. 4. Learned cQunsel for the petitioner further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation for decision of his case in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts as to whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.1. Examination pass certificate on his own expenses during the course of his service. 5. 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 in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Saxena's case (supra) as well as the decisions of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj's case (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma's case (supra),within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. In view of the foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Al& Gopal