Petitioners HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A_T BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (S) NQ. 2933 of 2007 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mrs. Lucy Maitra, Age about 56 year, Lectursr, Late W/o Shri S.K. Maitra, G-5, B.T.I. Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Uttam Kumar Nagwanshi, Age about 42 year, U.D. Teacher, Govt. High Schooi, Korasi, (Arang), Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Emeida Toppo, Age about 39 year, U.D. Teacher, S/o Shri Ajit Kumar Toppo, Govt. High School, Dondekala, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Ku. Rohani Joshi (Madhukar), Age about 42 year, U.D. Teacher, S/o Shri B.S. Joshi, Govt. Middie School Vimora, Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Mukesh Kumar Bansode, Age about 40 year, U.D. Teacher, S/o Shri Shriram Bansode, Govt. High. Sec. Schooi Hasda-2, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Geeta Lahre, Age about 40 year, U.D. Teacher, H/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Lahre, Govt. Girl High School, Simga, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Rajesh Agarawal, Age about 41 year, U.D. Teacher, S/o Shri Ram Tarang Lal Agrawal, Housing Board Colony (Near Post Offlce), Tatibandh, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Chandra Shekhar Dewangan, Age about 43 year, Head Master, S/o Shri Bihari Lal Dewangan, Krishna Nagar, Nahar Par Near Jai Ambey Storse.Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Churamani Sahu, Age about 41 year, U.D. Teacher, S/o Shri Chanduial Sahu, Govt. Boy's P/S Block Colony, Abhanpur, Vla-Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Bhagwan Singh Sahu, Age about 47 year, Astt. Teacher, S/o Late Shri Ramlal Sahu, Govt. Middie School Fundhar, Via.-Dharsiva, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretery, Tribal Welfare Department & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Distt. Education Officer, Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDJA 8. Respondents 10. Versus 1. SingleBench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panei Lawyer for the State / respondents. 1 QRDER (Passed on 10tR"dayof May, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as weil as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of !aw involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another {2006 (ii) MPJR-CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2006. Learned counsei appearing for the respondents does not controvert the said submission. Accordlngly, the writ petition is allowed in terms ofthe order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B.Ed. Examination Cenificate on their own expenses as per the circuiars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to cosis. Bt- Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ,?i •y > I