1 ;' a u In the Hon'ble Hiah Coyrt of Chhattishaarh at Bilasour C.G, W.P. (S) No. ra,c\<A 2010 Petitioners f ,0- \'s.^r >^y^ ^y w ^ y^^ Respondents 1. Amoti Ram Sahu aged 40 years, f\ S/o Shri Manoo Ram Sahu, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Mohandipat, Block Gunderdehi, District Durg C.G. 2. Girish Kumar Dewangan aged 43 yrs. Son of Bidelal Dewangan, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Gabdi, Block Gunderdehi Distt. Durg C.G. Versus 1. The State Government of Chhattishgarh Through the Secretaiy, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Durg 3. Block Educatip.n Officer, Qunderdehi. 0-tSH - fiiii^ (c,%,> t^^.i.l0 Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Conl6titution of India fpUssyance of writ of Mandamys, djrection pr any other aDDropriate writ. •Sr.A^WU^jt.S.ki^) ws^ ,,^C'B'5^ .("SSS'. '•.' "L,,.-;!':'18S|E 8 '^"L-^^^-T< ;'' r^ sn^f w Ri-fi* g«ff3)I^FW)W •ysf '*ii^Ki4, ynly'ie, iKioiyy _jAjf..K.J^...S..5^.|.!0.. SiI^T 'VR: (.'^SfS^f!', SB : Hon'ble Shri IWanindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 30-07-2010 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/re; Heard on admission. (3r the petitJoner. lAdvocate General with Shri Vinod jpondents on advance copy. Submission of learned oouns^l petitioner has passed B. Ed. examin^tion sen/ice, he is entitled to receive two| government circular dated 24-12-' submitted that in large number of i(| allowed in terms of order passed Bhardwaj vs. Muiwcipai Corporatiof CS 96. Learned counsel for the p^titioner representation on 22-03-2010 (Annexpre 7). However, the Blook Education order stating that the petitioner shoul( case. Once entitlement in law, in r^ passed B. Ed. examjnation on their been finally adjudicated by this Court| to oonsider and pass necessary orcj insisting on filing another petition indi^i Accordingly, the respondent| Gunderdehi is directed to consider +i''iid'li1-f ipral 'fffs^i tfw^R ^sjfnq for the petitioner is that as the on his own expenses while in ladvance increments in view of the 11988 and 01-03-1999. It is also llentical cases, petitions have been jn the case of Yastiwant Kwnar )^, Durg & another 2006 (2) MPJR- submits that he has made P-6) & 28-04-2010 (Annexure P- (pfficer, Gunderdehi has passed an submit an order passed in his own ipect of those teachers, who have cjwn expenses while in service, have respondent authorities are required |ers on their representation without idually. No.3- Block Education Officer, |he petitioner's claim in the iight of , (FCT'ipTPT—l-'S117—2/2010—1,00,000. "W ^••itiefi WT an^l **)!'* Tumane 1 i^ '3^' "ijiAiid^, aniy'Ko, fqoiyy i^ ^sj^'^^1 CT^r1i^7(1pf3^;E) Yashfyant accordaitoe order passed in the case of pass appropriate orders in aggrieved, it would be open for th^ remedy as may be available to him u| 'di^lcii'l-) 'wraf ^f 'f^zt 'rfst^re •^a.iRnaii^T Kumar Bharflwaj (supra) and with law. If the petitjoner is still petitioner to take recourse to such ider the law. With the aforesaid direction, tlle petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- ManmdraMohanShrivastava