SINGLE ^ V1 ^T^i r^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. S^h ^£2011 'z^>-'. ,u-:',^ff'-''-'""„...•••' ^^?v?^-^'1'^? ] ^^'..••••-:'7\^ •^••••" ^ RESPONDENTS PETITIONER : Vijay Kumar Dhruv, Son of Shyam Singh, aged about 42 years, At ^ Present Posted as Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School, Sukli, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS l'. State of Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Education District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTJCULARS QETBE_PEm-IOJUB3— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ABH AT BILA8PUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKER PSTITIQNBR RESPONDENTS W.P.tSi.NO. S804/2011 Vijay Kurnar Dhruv versus State of G.G. 8s Others Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (28.09.2011) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submifs that the petitioner who was appointed on the post ofAssistant Teacher under the School Education Department in the year 1994 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his D.Ed. from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost after seeking permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the parties do not dispute that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely co^rered by the order in the matter ofYasllwant Kumar Bharadstj Vs. Munlclpal Corporatioa, Durg & Another (2006 (II) MPJR CG.96) & Gopesh Kumar Venna Vs. The Gowt. ot CUbiatysgarh & Another (W.P.(S) No. 4130/2008). Counsel appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioners' make a representation, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions of this Court in the niatter of Yashwaat kumar Bharadaj (supraj within a period of four weeks from the date of reoeipt of the representation. .In view of the foregoing, nothing survives in this petitfon and the same is accordingly disposed of, - It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, considering ali the aspects of the case. ' Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker