""'^ atKGi^BBtUt ^•ss^- ^••-^&s^' I, ^•^.'^'Tiyvv''"f? ^<e&T....-"-"":l ^""" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BLLASPURC.G. W.P. (S) No. 2010 Petitioner ^' Ramchand Thakur aged 44 years Son ofShri Birsingh Thakur, Head Master Primary School, Bharripara Palari, Block Gurur District Durg C.G. Versus Respondents 1. The State Government of^hhaggishga?B)&U^<^H^^ School Education DepartmennviInislryTG^^ D.K.S.Bhavan, RaipurC.G. "1" -2. The District Education Officer, Durg. ^sn-Ov^-^.^.) 3. Block Education OfHcer, Gurur District Durg C.G. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia for issuance of writ of Mandamus/direction or anv other writ. [c[ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1594 of 2010 Petitioner Ramchand Thakur Versus The State Government of Chhattisgarh & others Respondent WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :• Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 12th day ofApril, 2010) 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments from the date of passing of D.Ed. examination, on his own expenses, during the course of his service. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issueinvolved in the present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered 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 tion, Durg and another^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another3. 3) Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions (supra) as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a \\ 1 2009 (III) MPJR (SC) 59 2 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 Arun w representation to decide his case in the light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts. 4) 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 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 (supra) and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation. 5) In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- .. ^ SatishK.Ag"ib»m Judge