@7 @ 3/6)» \v% f IN THE wGH . COURT OF CHHAmgGARH S.B. AT (Service BIQSPUR Matterl . W WRIT PEnTIQN (s: N04 g? (201g. 6’ Hakimullah Khan, son of Rahmat Ullah Khan, aged about 43 years, working as Head Master, Govt.Primary School, Tendumar, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. . State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, C.G. Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Rajpur, 2. District Education omcer, Raigarh, ¢hhat&sgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Treasury T PETITION U R ARTICLE 2260F THE N CONSTITUTION OF IND H: ” Iyw . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (S) NO.1399 OF 2010 PETITIONER Hakimullah Khan RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Versus Present :- Shri C.J.K,; Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panei Lawyer for‘the State. -—... ORDER (ORAL) , ' (Passed‘on this 15‘ day of April, 201 0) With the consent oft learned counsel appearingfor the parties, l the petition is heard finaiiy. 2) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of B.T.l. examination, on his own expenses, befote entering into service. Learned counsei appearing for the petiioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integre as ’ the same has been considered and decided bythe Supreme ‘ Court in Ashe Saxena v. state ofM.P. & Ors.’ as wet! as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation; ~ . Burg and enamel? and Gopesh KumarVemra v. The State - Govt. of Chhattisgam and anotheri v r i’2'009 (in) MPJR (SC) 59 \ - 2 2006 (i i) MPJR-CG 96v \\ 3 WP (S) No.4130 ofzooa, - ¥\V r\ @ 4). Learned counsel fmther submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by thg decisions (supra) as aforestated. Thus, r the petitioner may bev permitted to make a representation ta, t decide his case in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to‘ verification of the facts. 5) Learned counsei appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representations, the same wai be} _ considered and decided, in accordance with kw and In the light i r of the decisions of the SupremeQourtin Ashe Saxene (supra) as weil as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwq‘ (supra) and , Gopesh Kumar Verm (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receit ofv’th reprsentation. p e e fe, t . In view of orgoing according to the‘ teamed counsel appearing or the petitier, nothing survive in this petition fo adjudication. 7) Aocordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. ’Gowri w— ,J V / SATlsH K~ AGNIHOTR Judé a f on s r i it? I : ég . V