?*,s^.'.t^ .;'"' 'i1^. ?"'•'•;?».?i: ':;..;: *s^ .^. .^]i ^'|^r ^-^'E;| cJv\'f°l-r~ ^ PETITIONER ^..••-^>' ^sy'^- ^^^"" ,o>" •o^^'' ^•y<i RESPONDENTS IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. [ /2010 •^ ^' Sunder Lal Mongra, son of Shri Kriparam Mongra, aged about 60 years, Head Master, Governraent Priniary School, Khokhra, Block Nawagarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 The Block Education Officer Block Nawagarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T'Tnpt T~t^4-i^-t^-n^=u-—a=mn"±- :•"^ »J^?^H^^^®'?':•^ Ef r^^^.iis^; Aimt HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMTPETmONfS') NQ.1188af2010 PETmONER : Sunder Lal Mwigra. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : State ofChhattisgarh & Oth»s. Writ Petition Under Article 226 OfThe Constitution Ctfaidja SB: Hon'hte Shri Satish K. Asnihotei. J. Present: Shri Ashwani Shukla, Advocate for tiie petitianer. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 22"' day of March, 2010) Wlth the consent of teamed counsel ter the parttes, the m^tBr Is heant finalty. 1. By Uils p^ition, the pditionere seek a dlrectlon to ttie respondents to pay two advance Increments on passing of B.T.t. examinatton, on his cwn expenses, before entering into service. 2. Leamed counsel appeanng for the peUUoner submits that Uie issue irwdved In the present case is no tonger /ias integfass the same has been considaed and decided by the Supreme Court in y4ste Saena v. State efM.P. S <%a aswdl as by this Court In the matter of Yashwwit Kumar Bhaiadwaj v. Munic^al CoipoiaSon, Duig & anoffieP and G(yesh Kumar Vema v. Tha State Govt c# Clfhattlxiaili andaiMrttie^. 3. Shri Shukla further submlts that the Instant petitton Is sqiarely covefed by the deciston as aforestated. Thus, the petittoner may be pemitted to mate a reptesentation to the respondent authoriUes to decide her cases for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decislon, subject to veriflcation ofthe (act asto whether the peUtioner has acquired B.T.I. ceitiflcate on hls own wpenses bdore entsnng into senice. 4. Lramed counset appearing toi the Statafi^panderite submtts ftatin the ewrt, tte petttonei mates a (epresentaton, fcs same wU be con^teied and decided, in accoidancewtth tewand inthe lightoffte decistonsotthe Supreme Court in Asto Saxena (stpia) as well as ttis Court in Yasfmaat Kuner 'Bhamdwalwd Gopesh Kumar Vems (supm), ^Mthi" a period ot four weeks ftom the date of leceipt of the representation. 5. tn view of foregolng, accoRllng to the tearned counsel appearing for the . peUUoner, nothing survives in this pefflkin for adjudicaMon. 6. Accordingly.lhewritpetiUonisdisposedof. p Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '2009(ni)MPJR(SC)59 :>2006(U)MP.>R-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005