IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.,(s) No. ‘m€ /201o PETITIONER %V Panchram Dhritlahre s/o. Holsai, aged about 41 years, Working as Headmaster, Govt. Middle School Devarghata, Tahsil Dabhra, District Jangir-Champa (c.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the «Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /2. District Education Officer, Jangir—Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Block Education Officer, Dabhra, District Jangir—Champa (C.G.) Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HQGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) N0. 1996 cf 2010 PETITIONER : Panchlam Dhritlahre. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgafh & Gthers. WRET PETiTiON UNDER ART!CLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUT!ON OF INDIA SB: Hun’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotn”, J. Present: Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate for the petitioner Shri MP.S.Bhatia. Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORBER (ORAL) (Passed on 29* day of April, 2010) . By this petition,.the petitioner seek a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.Ed examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present ease is no ionger res Integre as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Courtin Ashe Saxena V. State ofMP, é? Ofsf . Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestateo'. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authonties to decide his case for grant of two increments in the tight of aforestated decision, subject to verification of the fact of possession of B.Ed certificate on his own expenses before entering into SerVice. . Learned counsei appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wiii be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the iight of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashe Saxena (sup/a) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. . in view oi foregoing, according to the teamed counsel appearing tor the petitioner, nothing suntives in this petition for adjudication. . Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. Amit “2009 (1m MPJR (SC; 59