mm g5§§$§~§ @ &?\z’%_ /C(> 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI No.1"?r( 12011 /Arun Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari aged about 46 Years, Lecturer, Govt. Girls Gattani Higher Secondary School Janjgir presently working as Assistant District Project officer (R M S A) Office of District Education Officer, District Janjgir~Chalnpa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh hrough Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) The District Education Officer, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) The Principal Govt. Girls Gattani Higher Secondary School Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS T HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PE’I‘ITION (S) No. 171 of2011 PETITIONER : Arun Kumar Tiwari. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrl, J. Present: ‘Shri Ajay Barilc Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 13 day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on account ofpassing B.Ed. examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. 2. Shri Barik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integral as the same has been considered and decided by Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State ofMP. & Ors.’ as well as by this Court in the this Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anotherz and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Govt. ofChham‘sgarh and anothetj . ‘ 2009 (It) MPJR (so) 59 2 2006 (H) MPJR CG 96 3 WP (S) No.413o ofzoos go 3. Shri Batik funher submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions as aforestated Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the light of athrestated decision, subject to verification ofthe fact asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed certificate on his own expenses before entering into 2 service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner make a representation, the same will be considered and'decided, in accordance with law and in the light ofthe decision of Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra) and of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj and Gopesh Kumar Verma (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the 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 M“ ",M Sd/- . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge