p4&/%Zf_ JN THE HON’LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR x W Sinw %@m§‘i (y; Sanjay Pandey, S/o.- Late Shri N. P. Pandey, Aged about 35 years, Assistant 'Teacher PETITIONER 94%;?)- Government :3 (Kw R/qo- pcuQg Danteshwari Mid Bid—JD?” Ie Cho School k&m Ek Batu; Panch Rasta, 3%3 Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) District Versus —\ RESPONDENTS . / State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Raipur, Distt.— Rarpur District Education Rajnandgaon Bhawan Officer, Coilectcrate, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Biock Education Officer, (Drawing & Disbursing Officer) DongargarhDistrict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension Department, Raipur (C.G.) District Treasury Officer Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon (C.G.) District HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4820 of 2009 Petitioner Sanjay Pandey Versus Respondents ‘ State of Chhattisgarh 8a othels WRIT PI‘ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri'Anoop Majumdar, Advocats for th€ petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents] State. o R D E R (Oral) (Passed. on this 17th day of March, 2O 10) Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to grant of two increments as he has obtained B.Ed. certificate on his own expenses. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to make a representation to the authorities for grant of two increments pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Municipal Corporau'on, Durg and anotherl and a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & 015.2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents] State has no objection to the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. In View of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a representan'on. If the representation is filed by the petitioner, the same may be considered and decided, in accordance with law on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks nom the date of receipt of the representation. No order asto costs. " Satish K. Agnihmri \‘ 1 i - 1 2006(11) MPJR-CG 96 2 2009 (111) MPJR (so) 59 Sdl- y Judge Thakur \ h\ y \ x, ,n’rr/