^ ^ 1 ;'r^^ <^ SINQtE BCTCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. ^09- /2010 PETITIONER: ^^ >Q*€r&'\ ^s-'' ''.••''-^.•'•'^'e'y -s>'\' ^?"' .^'•r^" Lochan F'rasad Patel S/o Shri Pareshwar Prasad Patel, Aged about 47 years, Assistant Teacher (Science) Government Higher Secondary School Nandeli, Block Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1«" VERSUS ._- ^' RESPONDENTS 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through : The Secretaiy, School Edueatonal Depajtment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.} f^ 2. The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.j 3. •' The Principal Governinent Higher Secondary School NandeU Block Raigarh, Distt Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WPJT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. ^ y HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETI'HONER WRIT PETITION ('S) No. 807 of2010 Lochan Prasad Patei. VERS State ofChhattiseai-h & Ofhers. Writ Petition Under Article 226 OfThe Coiistitution Of'India SB: Hon'ble Sliri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present; Sim Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. forthe State/respondents. (Passed c-n 25th day of February, 2010) With consent, leamed counsei for the parties were heard fmally. 1. By tlus petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay t\vo advance increments from the date ofpassing ofD.Ed exainination, on liis own expenses, during lus service period. 2. Sliri Patel, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that the issue itivolved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court m Asha Saxena v. State ofM.P. & Ors. as well as bv this Court in the matter of Yashvant Kitmar Bharadwaj v. Mr.nicipal Corporation, Durg & anothe' and Gopesh Kumar Verma v: The State Go\n. ofChhattisgarh and another^ . 3. Shri Patel furtlier submits tliat tlie instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as atbrestated. Thus, the petitioner may be pennitted to make 2009 (in MPIR (SC) 59 22006(U)MPJK--CG96 . 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 /I •a i5 a representation to decide his case in the ligfat of atbrestated decision, subject to verification ofthe fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed certificate on his own expenses duringthe course oflus sei-vice. 4. Leanied counsei appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, fhe petitioner makes a representation, tfae saine will be considered aiid decided. in aceordaace with law aiid in the light ofthe decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as we21 as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhaf'adwaj' and GopeshKumar Verma (siipra), within a period offour weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation. 5. In view offoregoing, accordmg to the leanied counsel appearisig for the petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge A