;ac SlgS?:.18^ IBiSB^Ei1 ISBIS^ '^ ^7?//^ i!l:I- ^.^f/^ ^%7 ^y/wf 8T///\^ $^ /%<y .'<s' ^ <%•• ,^~~ ^- ^ ^i:i l!!>.< l^ 8|IU> RESPONDENTS INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONISt No. ^66^ /2009 PETITIONERS 1. Ghanshyam Prasad Shriwas S/o Arjan lal Shriwas,aged about 50 years Head Master Govt. Prunary School Mudpar Block-Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Kavita Joshi W/o Rajkumar Joshi aged about 41 years, Head Master Govt, Girls Primary School Pachpedi, Block-Mjasturi, Distriet Bilaspur (C.G.) > 3. Arti Das Manikpuri S/o Ghasi Das Manikpuri, aged abtiut 46 Head Master Govt; Prunery Schopl Mudpar (Moularpara) Block- Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)i VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh I Through tKe Secretary SGhool; Educatibn Dep&rtment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipi.lr (C.G.) 2. The District Education Offieer, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer, Block- Masturi, District BUaspur (C.G.) ! WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B^v L'SB sa 'j^. mGH COKTRTOE CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR .WRITPETmON fSV No. 6605 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ghanshyam Prasad Shriwas & Others VERSUS State ofChhatdsgarh & Ofhers. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB:Hori'bleSUnSatishK.Asnihotri.J. Present: Shri Ashwani Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. ShriM.P.S.Bhatia,DeputyGovemmentAdvocateforthe State. ORDER(ORALy (Passedon 11th day of November, 2009) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 1. By this petition, the petitioners Seek a direction fo fhe respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D.Ed examinatioii, on fheir own expenses, duringtheir serviceperiod. 2. Shri Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case \s n6 long^t res integra as the same has been consideredanddecidedbythisCourtmthematter-ofyarfwan^^Mmar^^S^^ v. Mtinicipal Corporation, Durg and afwther and Gopesh Kumdr Verma v. The . State Gc^.ofChKattisgmh^anclanother^. : . 3. Shri Shukla fiu-ther submks fhat fhe iristant petition is squarely covered;by the decision as aforestated. Thus, fHe petitioner may; be permitted to make a rqireseiitaticm to decide^eir cases m (he light of afbre^atBd;decision,sul^ verification ofthe fact asto whether fhe petitioner has acquired D.Ed certificate on their own expenses during the course oftheir service. 4. Leamedcounsel appearing fbrthe Stat&<respondents submits that m the evqnt, the ' pefitioners make ;a representadon, fhe same, will be?considered and decided, ini; accordaace with law and .in-lfae Ught ofthe decision of^this Court in Yeis!i'>«anV Kumar Bharadwaj aiid (3<y^ Xuma^ F^nna /s!^n^,;^ithin^a; perkid op^i^^ weeks from the date ofreceapt.ofthe reRresentation. 5. In view of foregoing, aecording^to the leamed 'coansel appearingtfor^tHe petitioners, nothing surviyes inthis petition for adjudicatibn. 6. Accordmgly, the writ petiition is disposed of SdA : iii, Satish K. Agnihotri|f Judge 12006(II)MPJKCG96 2 WP(S) N0.4130 of2005 :ii:r ::1 ^ i