/ “2%éi3gr; W§® w? 1'29? IN TI-IE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (s1 No. $gia ’ [2010 / Pyare Lal Mahmalla, S/o Premlal Mahmalla, aged about 52 years, Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Tekari, Abhanpur, Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) Treasury Offlcer, Treasury Account and Pension, Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M x: H§GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B§LASPUR WRIT PE'i‘ITIONLSL No. 2098 of 2810 PETJHONEFE : Pvare Lai Mahmaim. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Siate of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRH‘ PETIT)ON UNDER AR’HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’b!e Shri Satish K. Agnjhnhi J Present: Shri $hashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner‘ Shri N‘NRoy, P.L. far the State/re$pondents. ORDER (ORAL) {Passed on 03rd day of May, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay two advance increments on passing of B.Ed. examination, on his own expenses, before entering into service. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue invoived in the present case is no longer res infegra as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Ashe Saxena V. Stare amp. Ce org. 7 3. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may he permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities to decide his case for grant of two increments in the light of atorestated decision, subject to verification of the tact of possession of B.Ed certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. 4; Learned counsei appearing tor the State/respondents submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw and in the iight of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashe Saxena {sqera) 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 petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/ i Satish K. A—gnihotri Judge Amit s 1 ... L‘Oc’gif‘Hii MPJR (SC) “)9 . I ,