S.B. (Service Matter! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHAT’I‘ISGARH! WRIT PETITION (S) NQ.{3%$ /201o. PETITIONER: Hoshe Lal, son of Shri Heera Lal, aged about 46 years, working as Assistant Teacher, Tribal Boys Hostel, Shivtarai, Block Kota, District Bilaspur; Chhattisgarh. Respondents J, 1. State of Chhattisgarh,/Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Ehawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. / 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /1 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal ' Welfare Department, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. /, 4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE \ ONSTI’I‘UTION OF INDIA C HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR {W7 WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1938 OF 2010 PETITIONER Hoshe Lal Versus k RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri K.S. Pawar, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this26‘“ day ofAprii, 2010) 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of B.Ed. examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of MP. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation; Durg and anotherz and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another? 3) ' Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra). Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 3 WP (S) No.4130 of 2005 " decide her case in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representations, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as weii as this Court in Yashwanf Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. in view of foregoingl according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of SdF Gowri sATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge