C(f’la? \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH! WRIT PETITION!S)N0.%§Z /2010. ggé‘maE E PETITIONER: *K’Madhav Ram Yadav, son of Tonko Ram Yadav, aged about 47 years, working as Lower Division Teacher at Primary School, Janik Mahua, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. versus a Resgondents /. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, £.G. f I 2 . Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhatti'sgarh. 3. Asst. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (, 4. District Education Ofneer, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. V , and WRITN PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA S.B. (Service Matter! 5 5. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury Pension, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. M NN; H§GH COURT OF CHHA! HSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 956 of 2010 PETIT!ONER : Madhav Ram Yadav. VERSUS BESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WR!T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shrl Satlsh K. Agmhom, J. Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the Statefrespondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12‘“ day of March, 2010) With the consent of learned counsei appearing tor the parties, the matter is heard finaily. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance incrementsfrom the date of passing of D.Ed examination, on his own expenses, during his service period. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue invoived in the present case is no longer res fittegra as the same has been considered and decided by this Court in the matter of Yashwanz‘ Kumar Bharadwaj V. Municipal Corporation, Durg & another] and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt of Chhatz‘isgarh and enema/2. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squareiy covered by the decision as atorestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities to decide 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 D.Ed certificate on his own expenses during the course of his service. 3. Learned counsel appean'ng for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions this Court in Yashwanz‘ Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar l/erma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 4. 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. V, Amit ” E i J sdl— 1 2006 (H) MPJR-CG 96 2 WP(S) No. 4130 of2005