/ (^(a^^ 6SNIi IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT 3ILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. "^ <2'0 /2011 PETCTCONER Dulli Singh Jagat, aged about 42 years, S/o. Shri Natthulal Jagat, Working as Upper Division Teacher, 6ovt. Middle School Supatarai, Block Kartala, Distt. Korba (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^' -N^^ (f^sy 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.6.) ^y .•• 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare DepartmentRaipur, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) ^" 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.&.) 4. 'Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension Korba, Oistt. Korba (C.6.) WRIT PETCTION UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTCON OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. -- PARTCCULARS OF THE PETITCONER ^l As mentioned in the Cause title. <^ -^.^ l?'l I vs€/^' laB.a^^::'<» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRiT PETIT!ON (S) N0. 780 OF 2011 lli Singh Jagat RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisaarh & Others 3. 4. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER fORAU (Passed on this 9th day of Februar^-, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed B.T.I. examination in the year 1992 before entering into the service i.e. on 29.06.1993, at his own cost. 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 corisidered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P...& Ors. as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal CorporaSon, Durg and another^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of ChhaWsgarh and anotheP. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is square!y covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the ; 2009(1 II) MPJR(SC) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 . M y^S^- 6. 7. ashok 2 llght of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 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 dlsposed of. Sd/- , ,_, 8afehK.Ag»ibotn r-r