^ S.B. (Service Mattert !NTHE_HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) »*. WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1^2a9 /2010. ^sa'rf' PETITIONER: Manilal Bhramini, son of Dujram Brhamini, aged about 39 years, presently working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Balco Nagar, Disbrict Korba, Chhattisgarh. Respondents versus 1. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through Secretary, Education Departraent, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. v0.--'^/'! / .0 '^ ..w'''fff ^4^y ^.^ <^/^> '<¥..- 2. District Education Officer, Disfrict Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Du-ector, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Korba, Chhatdsgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTlCLE 22&OTLTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r G HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR PETIT10NER WRIT PETITIQN (Si N0.1739 OF 2010 Maniial Bhramini RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDER ('ORAL! (Passed on this 19th day ofApril, 2010) 1) By this petition. the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D.Ed. examlnation, on his own expenses, during the course of service. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors.1 as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothei2 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanothei^. 3) Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarety covered by the decisions (supra) as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to 12009(]ll)IViPJR(SC559 22006(11) MPJR-CG96 3VVP(S)No.4130of2Q05 5) 6) Gov/ri 0 o v decide his case in the light of aforestated decisions, subj'ect to verification of the facts. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representations, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the liaht of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as weii as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In view of foregoing, according to the tearned coun^i appearing for the petitioner, nofhing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Satr,ta^-^ 3udSe •*o«v