^ iNGLI IFNCK IN THEiilGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S) No. ^u / 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Yasmeen Naz Qureshi W/o Shri R. U Qureshi, Aged about 45 years, Occupation - Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School New Krishna Nagar Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS '-\.^ ^^T/?^y ^.-^'y ^p^ >-;' ^-..>" r)f.y~ •v^" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur .. (C-G-) 3. District Education Officer District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. :- Same as above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS. 3. Same as above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS BEING MADE. That, petitioner is being filed the instant petitioner before this Hon'ble Court, not challenging any particular order, but the petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondents and seeking a direction to the respondents to grant two advance increments in ac(;ount of B. Ed. Examination passed by.the petitioner in the year 1987 in view ofthe circular dated 21.09.1974 and the order passed ..^^i.^ /^^ "\ .^ '^^1:^^1^-^'^ Kl ^ ff y- ^^ Efer^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 915 OF 2011 Smt. Yasmeen Naz Qureshi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Wrlt Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Present:- Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushii Dubey, GovernmentAdvocatefortheState/ IIS. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 14th day of February, 2011 ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petltioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefrt of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination before entering into the service, at her own cost. 3. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved In the present case is no tonger res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors. as weli as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwsj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and snothe^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of ChhaW.sgarh and anothe^. 4. Learned counse! further submits that the instant petition is squareiy covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permttted to make arepresentation to decide his case in the 1 2009(1 II) MPJR(SC) 59 2 2006 (!!) MPJR-6G 06 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 M 7. ^ 2 light of aforestated decisions; subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. certificate on her own expenses before entering into service. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitloner makes a representation, the same wi!i 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 petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. __^- - pta'sfeao a.owri ^a.^a 3udfee IFISf