~ ^«^^S^~- a W SS ^t^!^Sg^^^:.» ^SSS^- ^ '1<5^_ L S.B. (Service Mattert IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^6^-8/2010. N^! PETITIONER: Respondents Jageshwar Ram Bhagat, son of Bandhuram Bhagat, aged about 44 years, presently working as Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. versus 1. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. ^y^ ^ov 1 ^.\«^\.' <^^ Ys^^ 2. District Education Officer, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Korba, Chhattisgarh. ^^i]§^i^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^"i;^ •x^ r^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.1628/2010 Petitioner Jageshwar Ram Bhagat Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 7HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K.^nihotri, J. Presenfc- Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for ffie aate. ORALORDER (Passed on this 12m ofApri!, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petttioner seeks a dirastion to the respondents to pay two advance incremente on passing of B.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during the course of his service. 2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integfsas the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State af M.P. & Ors. as weil as by this Court in the matter of Ysshwant Kumar Bhaeadwaj v. Muniapal CorporaSon, Duig & anoth^ and Oopwh Kumgr Vwma v. Tfie- Stete Govt cf ChhaMJSfiarh andancMie^ . - 3. Leamed counsel further submits that the instent petition is sqvareiy eovsred 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 increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact asto whether the petiUoner has acquired B.Ed. certificate on his own expenses during the course of hisservice. 4. Learned counsei appearing for the State/respondente 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 of Uie decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwairt Kumar Bhamdwaj and Gcyes/i Kumar Verma (supra), within a period offour weete from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. ln viaw of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudieation. , 6. _Accordingly, the writ psiition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ! 2009 (IIQ MPJE. (SC) 59 22006(II)MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4l30of2005.