IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 15'^>l I OF 2011 PETITIONER ^a .^^^- .....-•"" •s^ A- ^^•-T^>^ ¥<6ST'...---"o-b\c\ Gaya Das Lahre, S/o Kangal Das Lahre, aged about 50 years, At Present Posted as Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School, Kodwa Mahant, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : .1. State of Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Education District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^4. Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CQNSTITUTION OF ^i^-^^. ^^•s a'^^ ^-/^.^l ^•^! ^~t ei^^ INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR SB •• HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRTFItIKBR DIWAKER W.P.i'SI.NO. 5SII/2Q11 PBTITIONBR Gaya Das Lahre versus RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & Others Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITIOH UNDBR ARTICLB 22ft OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF ISDIA ORDER (28.09.2011) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department in the year 1994 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his D.Ed. from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost in the year 1997 after seeking permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the parties do not dispute that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by the order in the matter of Yashwant Kunaar Bbaradqj Vs. Mualctpal Corporatloa, Duq[ 86 Another (2006 (II) MPJR CG.96) & Gopesh Kumar Venaa Vs. Tbe Govt. of ChhatU^arb 88 Another (W.P.(S) No. 4130/2005). Counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners' make a representation, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in the matter of Yasliwaat kuaar BharadE^ (supra) within a period of four -weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In view of the foregoing, nothing survives in this petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, considering all the aspects of the case. ~ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker, .Judge SB