c r' '• S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S1 N0. •) A 5!jf/2010. ^gE BETITIONER: r Ivanish Tiwari, son of Late Radha Krishna Tiwari, aged about 34 years, Presently working as Upper Diyisiqn ,. B^njell Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Block Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Respondents versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Education Department, D.K-S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. f%y^. ^^ ^^ /'^' '*' * 2. District Education Officer, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, VusA>a Chhattisgarh. WRI'LPEmTIQN UiiDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGWiH : BILASPUR WRIT PET1TION (S) N0.1621/2010 Avanigh Thwari Versus Petitioner Respondents State of Chhattisgarh an< WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2% OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present- Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyerforthe State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 12" ofAprit, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pey two advance increments on passing of B.Ed examinstion, on his own expenses, during the eourse of his service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submiis that the issue involved jn the present case is no longer /iss integra as the same has been considered and decided bv the SuDreme Court in Asha Saxena v. Stateof M.P. & 0/s.' as well as by this Court in the matter af Yashwant Kumar Bhamdwaj v. Munidpal CwporeScm, Durg & anoWie^ and Gopesh Kmnar Veima v. The State Qtwt ofChhattsgarh andanothe^. 3. Learned counsel further submits that th®instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be . permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities ta deci(te his case for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject-to verification of the fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. certificate on his own expenses during the couree of his serviee. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wilf be censidered . and decided, in aecordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) aswell as this Court in Yashwant . Kumar Bhaisdwaj an^ Gopesh Kumar Verma fsupra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt bf the representation. 5. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed.counsei appearing fw the petitioneis, nothing survives in this petition for ad|udicsftion. Sd/- 6. Accordingty, the writ petition is disposed of. Satish K. Agniholri Judge 2009 (III) MPJR (SQ 59 22006ai)MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005