® .^.1--;" \0-^ ^ :^<.- IN THEHON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fSt N0. ^°:&ll /2011 PETETCONER Kanhaiya Lal Bareth, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Shri Tangu Ram, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middl.e School Malda, Block Podi Uproda, Distt. Korba (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^ 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Depar'tment Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Oepartment, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.6.) Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension Korba, Distt. Korba (C.6.) WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under;- 1. " PARTCCULARS OF THE PETCTCONER As mentioned in the Cause title. ,1 -1S! '^^:S^xf> ''^s&'.sss cs\y HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION tS) N0. 784 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kanhaiva Lal Bareth Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAD (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 1. 2. Heard learned counsei for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the Detitioner has passed B.T.I. examination in the vear 1991 before entering into the service i.e. on 29.06.1993, at his own cost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra, as thesame has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & 0/s.* as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothe!2 and Gopesh Kumar Veima v. The State Govt. of ChhatSsgarh and anothei3. 4. Learned counse! further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 ' 2200S(!1) MPJR-CG96 3 WP (S) No.44,30 of 2005 ^ T" 's?<. <A. 'il^f' •'> light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. certiflcate on his own expenses before entering into service. 5. Learned counse! appearing for the State 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 the declsions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation. 6. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counse! appearing for the petltioner, nothing survives In this petition for adjudication. 7. Accordinaly, the writ petition is disposed of. - - Sd/- Satish K. Agaihotri Judge ashok