E- SINCaU IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ^d^ WRITPETITION (S) No.v ' ' /aQlQ-Zol.i PETITIONER \2^.. ^.-^^^ v--^'\/y> ,'..^'^<fi: . A'^.y y lu- Ghanshyam Prasad Pandey S/o Puna Ram Pandey aged about 46 years, Upper Division Teacher Govt. Boys Middle School, Koni, Block- BUha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^'-^ ~~ ^ "'->•-' ^l^^ State of Chhattisgarh Through fhe Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^' 2. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer, BIoek- Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITIOW UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfuUy begs to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned above in the cause title. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS WR!T PETiTION (S) N0. 777 OF 2011 Ghanshyam Prasad Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitloner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER rORAD (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 2. Heard !eamed counsel for the partles. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the titioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on 3. account of the fact that the petitioner has passed D.Ed. examination in the year 2000, on his own expenses, during the course of service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submlts that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and de'cided by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal CorpQraSon, Durg and another and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may, be permitted to make a representation to decide his case "in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts ''2006(!1) IViPJR-CG96 'WP (S) No.4130 o1'2005 c^ 'l, 2 asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. certificate on his own expenses, during the course of service. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wiii be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra), within a period of Tour weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner, nothing survivesin this petition for adjudication. 7. Accordinaiv, the writ oetition is disposed of. astiok Satish^- "" Judge