G^1-^ (^l S.B. (Service Mattert IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHAmSGARH AtBILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) NoJi/O'D /2010. PETITIONER: Ku.Mani Prabha Tripafhi, daughter of Shri Premanand Tripathi, aged about 42 years, working as Lecturer, at B.T.I. Training Center, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents .0 ^'^ ^ ^ <rs' ^^ ..•^•' ^;' y.^ &• c'1" ..'*-' /^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. ^ 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury Raigarh, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^/y^\ I 1 y •/ '•&, ^y' ^\y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETtTIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1400 OF 2010 Ku. Mani Prabha Tri|»thi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Offiiws (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihofri, J. Present:- Shri CJ.K. Rao, Advocate for the pefitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panei Lawverforthe State. ORDER fORAU (Passed on thEs 1rt day ofApril, 2010) 1) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, the prtitioner seeks a direction to the r^pondents to pay two advance increments from ttie date of passing of B.Ed. examination, on her own expenses, before entering into service. 3) Leamed counselappearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no (onger ras intagra as the same has been considered and dedded by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. Sfate ofM.P. & 0/s. as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Munscipal Corpora^on, Durg and anoffisi2 and Gopss^ Kumar Verma v. The Siste Govt. ofChhaWsgaff] and anottief3. 12009(111)MPJR(SC)59 22006(11)MPJR-CG^ 3WP(S)No.4130o'2C05 Gowri 4) Leamed counsel further submlts that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra) as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitled to makB a representation tb decide his case in the light of aforestated decistons, subjeet to verification of the facts. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the State submfts that in the event, the petitioner makes a representations, the same wl! be considered and decided, in accordance with law and inthe light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar SAaraeftvaj (supra) and Gopes/? Kumar Verma (supra), withln a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation. 6) In view of foregoing, according totte leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothlng survives in this petition for adjudication. 7) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge