IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH A~T BILASPUR W.P, 15} N0. ^l ^'^ /2011 PETCTCONER Ramkushal Chandrakar, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Anand Ram, working as l-1ead Master 6ovt. Primary School Kerajhan'ya, Block Pali, Distt. Korba (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,\v^y Vv^y' . ^%v% ./••^- ^-" ^'-.*' ^•^'. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.6.) Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension Kbrba.&istt. Korba (C.G.) WRITPETCTEON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA - The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETCTIONER As mentioned in the Cause title. (^^ i t^ ?fV ~ ^ ^i' ,-^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 787 OF 2011 Ramkusha! Chandrakar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others o :-' (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/responcients. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 1. 2 Heard learned counset for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petltioner submits that the petrtioner is entitled to benefit of two advance increments on account of the fact that the oetitioner has oassed B.T.I. examination in the year 1992 before entering into the service i.e. on 29.06.1993, at his owncost. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue invoived 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. S. Ors. as well as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anoths^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarfi and anothe^. 4. Learned counset further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the '2009?lii)MPJR(SC)59 22006{11)MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 a ' ,1--:" ^ ^, f'C^ ashok 9 ight of aforestated decisions; subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. 5. Learned counse! appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petttioner makes a representation, the same wili be considered and declded, in accordance with iaw and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. --———-— Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge ^ /'