HIGH COURT OF CHHATI1SGARH, BILASPUR W.P.tSt Mo. 7604 of 3007 PETITIONBRS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Shukla Dey, aged 38 ycars W/o Mr. Sudip Day, Upper Division Teacher, GovemineBt Hr. Sec. School, Dcwada, P&tan, Distt.Durg. 2. Smt, R. Sreelatha, Aged 39 years W/o Mr. B. Ajay Kuinar, 1-^ctiirer, Govenxmeut Hr. Scc. Scltool, Dewada, Pataa District Durg C.G. 3. Siut. Kirti Pradhaa, aged 38 years W/o Mr. Ajay PTadhan, I^ecturer, Govenunent Hr. Sec. School, Dewada, Patan District Dui^ C.G. 4. Sm.t. Sangeeta Singh Baghel, Aged 42 years, W/o Mr. Pravas Siagh Baghel, Lecturer, Govemrnent Hr. Sec. School, Dewada. Patan District Durg C.G. 5. Sint Noorussaba Shariff, aged 51 years, W/o J.M, Sbariff, Head- Mistress, Govenuaeat ?»!iddk School, Ctibawni, Bliilai Distt. Dui^ Versus 1. The State Goveminent of Chbattisgarb, Through fhe Secretaiy, Education & Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C,G.) 2. Assistaat CoiainissioneT. Tribal WeMare Departinent Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) 4. Director of Raipiir (C.G.) PiibUc Instnicfion WRIT PETITIOM UBroBR_ARTICLE 886 OF THE COBSTITUTION OFLIKTOA Appearance: Shri Soinkant Verma, connsel for the petitioTiers. Shri Pradcep Singh, Panel I^awyer for fhe State on advance copy. WPfSI No. 7604/2007 QRAL ORDER (20.12.2007$ SUIHL KUMAR 8INHA, J Heard on admission. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have passed B.Ed. exainination on their own expenses, t.herefore, they are entMert to receive two advance increinents accordmg to circiilars date.d 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999. HR a1so subinits that in many identical insttei's, the petitions have becn allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yeishwant Kwnar Bharadutaf Vs. SSunlcifMl Corpnratlon, flurg euid another ^2006 ffl? J UR-CG 96^. He submits that the case offhe petitioners is squarely covered by the said judginent. This legal position is not disputed t>y the leamed coiinsel for fhe State. However, he suhtnits that tlie oixler may he passed in tenns of the said jiidginent, but it shall be siAject to vp.rification w-garding petitionei-s' siich quatification. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in tei-ms of tlie onder passed in case of Vashiiieinl Kumar Bh.a.radwaj Vs. Munidpal Corporation, Diirg and anaiher (Supra) sohy.ct to verification of the. facts as to whether the petitioncrR had acqiiired B.Ed. Exaininatibn Certificates on fheir own expcnses as per circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1.999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increiaents or not. The petition stands fina11y disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Siiiha Judge vatti