© /^ ^INiaLfc 8 IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S}NO. '^'C'^ /2011 PETCTCONER Vijay Bhusan Tirki, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Misak Tirki,Working as Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Arda, Block Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1.- ^' ..^^ ^•^¥y" .;/,A^..'-- State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) /^ 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur (.C.G.) 3. / Assistant Commissioner, Tn'bal Welfare Department, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.G.) ^ 4. ;Joint Director, Treasury Account <& Pensipn Korba, Distt. Korba (C.6.) WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTLCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. ^. PARTECULARS OF THE PETCTEONER As mentioned in the Cause title. (f b-^s^ 1 ^ '•.i^y—-,!g <;'."5F"si^' A "%te--%^ \^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS ?R!T PETITION (S) N0. 789 OF 2011 Vijay Bhusan Tirki Versus State of Chhattisaarh & Others Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 9 day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefrt of two advance increments on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination in the year 1992 before entering into the service i.e. on 30.06.1993, at his own cost. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra, as the same has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors. as weli as by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothsi^ and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. Ths State Govt. of ChhatGsgait and anothe^. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision as aforestated. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to decide his case in the •20Q9(!ll)iy!PJR(SC)59 22006(1!) MPJR-CG96 3WP(S)No.4130of2005 •*•»,. ^ ^•.a F :?J: -.ts!1y 6. 7. ashok 2 light of aforestated decisions, subject to verification of the facts asto whether the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. certificate on his own expenses before entering into service. Learned counset appearing for the State submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same wil! be considered and decided, in accordance with !aw and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Asha Saxena (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of recelpt of the representation. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counset appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in thls petition for adjudication. Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. - ~~- Sd/- Satish K. AgBihotn Judge