%Y HEGH COURT OF CHEATTxSGARH, EILASPUR mums} No. 5356 cf 2007 PETITIQNERS 1 Dalsay Markam Slo Shm' Dori Ram, Age about 41 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Urdigaon, Block — Makdi, Distt. — Bastar (C.G.) Dhanesh Ram Nag SIC 8111i Mangalu Ram Nag, Age about 41 years, A5stt. Teacher, Govt. Pn‘maxy School, Jhakapara, Block — Makdi, Distt. — Bastar (C.G.) 3 Gannoo Ram Nag S/o Shri Bhima Ram Nag, Age about 39 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primaty School, Sodma, Block —- Makdi, Distt. — Bastar (C.G.) 4 Laxmi Nath Son’ S/o Shri Dhaili Ram Sari, Age about 34 years, Aestt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Taxgaon, Block — Makdi, Distt. — Bastal(C.G.) Shyam Lal Sorl Sfo Shri Chaim Ram Sorl, Age about 35 years, Asstt‘ Teacher, Govt. Po'maly School, Devharduli, Block— Makdi, Distt. — Bastar(C.G.) , 6 Gandu Ram Patel S/o Shri Pi‘em Lal Patel, Age about 412 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Jogidfn, Block — Fmgeshwar, Distt ~ Raipur' (C. G.) Versus P£SF€3NDENT$ 1 State of Chhattlsgarh, Through: Secretaiy, School Education Department Ministly, D . K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur/ Bastar (co) 3 Block Education Officer, Makdil Fingeshwar 4 Joint Director, Treasury, Account 8r, Pension Raipur/ Easter (C.G.) iWrit Petition under Article 2260f the Constitution of Imlia} Anneaxanee: Shri Ajay Shrlvastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shn' Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State on advance copy. V4 2 w,P.{S) No. 5356/2007 ORAL ORDER (17.09.2007) SUI’HL KUMAR $§NHA, J. Heard on admission. Learned coullsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have passed D.Ed. examination on their own expenses, therefore, they are entitled to receive two advance increments according to circulars dated 24.12.1998 ‘ and 01.03.1999. He also submits that in many identical matters, the petitions have been allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumw Bharadwai Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg and another {2006 (I!) WJRCG 96}. He submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said Judgment. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. However, he submits that the order may be passed in terms of the said judgment, but it shall be subjected to verification regarding petitioners’ such qualification. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in case of Yashwcmt Kumar Blmradwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation; Durg and another (Supra) subject to verification of the facts as to whether the petitioners had acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificates on their own expenses as per circulars dated 24.12.1998/and 01.03.1999 and further Whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. The petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to COStS. Sdl- l Sunil Kumar Sinha l Judge vatti