^ C/3- 1 0T S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATnSGARH) &»^»^o. WRIT PETITION (S) N0. /6^^ /2010 8 PETITIONER: Gendlal Kurre, son of Ghasiram Kurre, aged about 40 years, presently working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents ^%^ ^^^^ _f^'''!fty .''u / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. District Education Officer, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER AKHCLE^226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ Petitioner Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BU-ASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)N0.1®24/2010 GendlalKurre Veraus Stete o( Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Singte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.J.K.Reu, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. QRAL ORDER (Passed on this 12th of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to ths respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.Ed examinatton, on his awn wpenses, during the course of his service. 2. Learned counsd appearing for the petitjoner submits that the issue imoived in the present case is no longer res integmsslhe same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxana v. Slate of M.P. & OtS. as well as by this Court in the maUer of Yashwant Kamar Bhafadwaj v. Munidpal CwporaSon, Durg & anottie^ and Qopesh Kwnar Veima v. Tha . State Govt ofChhattsgarii andanattie? . 3. Learned counsd further submits that the instant pgtition is squareiy covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be penmitted to make a repr^ntation to the resoondent authorities to daside his CMB for grant of two increments in the light of aforestated decision, subject to vwfficatton of the fact asto whether the petrljoner has acquired B.Ed. ceitificate on his own «xpensesduring the course of his servfce. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) as well as this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj snd Qopesh Kunwr Veima (supra), within a period of feur weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. tn view of foregoing, according to the learned eounsel appearing for the petrtioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6? Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed o{. '20090II)MPJR(SC)59 a2006(fl)MP}R-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge