t aUu;u R! '^k.*'i IN THE HIGH COURTOFCHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W0 WRITPETITION (Sl No.<s:~ /2011 PETITIONER a-' <;••^yn3..-- ^i/" ^^r^y J'1 'a^y" ^ss" ASO- Hemsagar Panda S/o Late Prafulla Chandra Panda aged about 44 years, Head Master Govt. Primary School, Binjkot, Block- Pussour District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer, Block- Pussour District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ Arun - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTION (S1N0.2240.PF 2011 PETITiONER RESPONDENTS Sfate of Chhattisaarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Singie Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. AanihQtri, J Present:- Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate for the Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate roner. Generai for the State. ORDER ('ORAL) fp<s<£<aori r^n thi'a 9.R d?tv'f nf ^^ Vffi'^fv^1v^s T-^E a siii ia^f a»-^ ^ri^u^ ^^-e ''nii'i 3. 4. Heard iearned counsel for the oarties. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the Detitioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that he has passed D.Ed. examination in June, 2000. during the course of his sewice, at his own cost. Learned counsel aDoearina for the oetjtioner submits that the issue Involved in the oresent case is no longer res integra, as the same 'nas been considered and decided bv this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municlpal CoipomSon, Durg and another' and Gopesh Kurnar Vernja K Tha StBts Govi of Ohhstti-sQayfj Bnd ano'^@fi. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation So decide his case in the light of aforestated decisions, Learned counsel aDDearinQ for the State submits that in the event. the Detitioner makes a reoresentation. the same wii! be considered and decided. in accordance with iaw and in the light of the decisions ofthjs Court in Yashv-fsnt Kumar Bharadvvaj (supra), within a period of eig'nt weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, subject to verification of the facts. In view of foreaoina. accordins to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives m this peti'tlon for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petltion is disposed of. Sd7- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ! 2006 (ii) iviPJR-CG 96 " WP (S) No.4130 of 2005