€^\^-7 PH,ar«3 Ef ^ ? ^ ^L^ iy.^ ^^ ^'^ ^; ^ ^^^yLic ^^Ni^^i IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHtIATTtSCiARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ISINO. J6/2- /2010 PETITIONER ^ -*" ^ t*' ^y t°'..••"'<'>''' /•••'' 't- '•-•" ...•' ^0^"" •?" V;!-" S'^^-'^ •* <.^[ &y^ .i)..'" y RESPONDENTS \^ >/;^-.r......-- '£f'k - "'sssat- '^^'"i.y Smt. Maxi Miliyani Toppo, W/o Vinay Prakash Toppo, aged about 45 years, working as Govt. Primary School, Turilodam, Block - Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /" 2. District Educaiton Officer, Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block - Jashpur Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account SE Pension Jashpur, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ H16H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1612a;Q10 Petitioner Smt. IVIaxi Miliyani Toppo Respondents State of GhhatUsga»*iand others WRIT PETITION UNOER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE GONSTITUTiON OF INDIA Single Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. - Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Sh" M.P.S.Bhatfa, D'/. GA forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12" of Aprit, 2010) , 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.T.I. examination, on her own axpenses, before entering into the service. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer /sss //rf6g'/»asthe same has been consitfered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. Stata ofM.P. S 0/s. as well as by this Court in the maBer of Yashvwnt Kumar Bhafadwaj v. Munidpal CwpoiaSon, Durg & anotti^ and Gopesh Kumar Ve/ma f. T/ie State Qovt afChhaWsgarti andanoffie^. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the instant pelitfon is squarety covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, th®petitioner may be pemriitted to make a representetion to the respondent authorities to decide her case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, sulqectto vwification of the fact asto whsther the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. certificate on her own expenses before entering into the service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submite that in the event, the petitioner makes a represerrtBtion, 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 (supm) as welt as thte Court in Yashwant KumarBhamdvwjaniJi CSopesh Kumar Vemia (supra), within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. -6. Aecordingly,thewritpetitionisdiaposedof. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 22006(II)MPJR.<;096 3 WP(S) No. 4130 of2005