<'y c^^^r IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0^(i '^ /2011 PETCTCONER Ganesh Ram Chandra, aged about 41 years, S/o. Shri Buddhuram Chandra, Working as Upper Division Teacher, 6ovt. Middle School Malda, Block Podi Uproda, Distt.Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2.•' .<•»- .^y w° 3. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare bepartment Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare bepartment, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.6.) ^' 4. Joint'Director, Treasury AccountA Pension Korba, Distt. Korba (G.G.) WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTCON OF IN&IA The petitioner most huinbly and respectfully begs to submit as under;- 1. PARTJ.CULAR5 OF THE PETCTCONER As mentioned in the Cause title. y ^£/ * .;^" !h,, ^sst ^JS^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETIT!ONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION tS) N0. 782 OF 2011 Ganesh Ram Chandra 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 forthe petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsei for the parties. 2. 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 petitioner has passed B.T.I. examiRatlonin the year 1992 before entering into the service i.e. on 08.04.1994, at his own cost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no ionger res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors. as we!! as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and snothei^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of ChhaWsgarh and anotheP. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be Dermitted to make a representation to decide his case in the 12009(I!I)MPJR(SC559 22006.(li)MPJR-CG96 3 1 n/r^ /c^\ h i^. /i-<^n —cortnc: VV?-' ^OJ !'ttU.ut^)tJ Ui ZUUU •'.'•T^.. ^ ashok 6. 7^ 2 light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.t. certificate on his own expenses before enterina into servtee. Learned counse! appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wili be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petltioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. .?^owv ^v