•»n >". ^'ng2% -SS^G^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.-) WRIT PETITION (S1 N0. -7^<6 OF 2011 PETITIONER ^^ \ / Darbar Singh Rajput, Son of Krishna Kumar Rajput, aged about 43 years, at present posted as Upper Division Teacher, at Govt. Middle School, Lalpur Kala, Tahsil f l«»^lj^l^l t-MullUI/ .»^"^Sy:' ,..'['1^\'^' / Lormi, District Bilsapur (C.G.) VERSUS •^" R£SPONDENTS 'f/ ^^ ^n^ 1. ^ State ofChhatfisgarh: Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^' 2, Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Education District Bilaspur (C.G.) <^"' -% 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, ^.District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOJ1QF INDIA HiGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT 3ILASPUR : KQS'BLE MR. JUSTICB FRTTrNKER DIWAKER W.P.i'Si.NO. 7656/20_U. Darbar Sir.eh Raiour Versus State of Chhattisgarh 85 Others Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. ibrthe State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THS CONSTITDTION OF INDIA ORDBR Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was aopointed on the post of Assistant 'T'eacher in the year 1987 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his D.Ed from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost in the year 2001 aft.er seeking permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the parties do not dispute that the controversy invoived in this aetitiQn is squarely covered by the orde;;. in the matter of Yashwaiat ^ Kuznar Bharad^j Vs. Municipal Corporatioa, Durg & Asiother (2006 (II) MPJS CG.9S; & Gopesh Kumar Verma Vs. The Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Aaother (W.P.$S) No. 4130/2005). Counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners roake a representation, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with iaw and in the light of the decisions of this Court in the matter of Yasihwant kumar BharadaJ (suprai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In wew of the foregoing, nothing survives in this petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authoritv concemed wouid be at liberty to decide the representation strictiy in acxiordance with law, considering all the aspects ofthe case. ' ~~-~ ~ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker - .Judge