HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtL/i^PUR W. P.fS)No. 1404 of 2007 Petitioner Smt. Madhu F'andey, W/o Shri Shailwh Pandey, aged about 36 years, R/o ©aliNo. 3, Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspw (C.G.) Versus Respondents :1. StateofChtatBsgarh, Through Secrdary, EdtaaUon Depaiftnent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Director of Publie InstnicUon, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) SingleBench: Hon'bte Mr. JusBce Satish K. ^nihotri. Mr. Kumaresh Tiwari, Advocate for the PrtMoner. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Qy. Govt. Advecate forihe respondents/State. y' ORDER (Passed on ttiis 12th day of March, 2007) The petitioner is woridng SK Assistant Tsacher in the govemment school. In Ihe course of her seivices as ^sistant Teacher, the p^titloner has obtained B.Ed. ExaminaUon CertBicate on her ownoqienses in Uie month ofOct-Nov'96ff>/3). Leamed counsel appearir^ for ttie peUfoner submits that the que^on invoh/ed, herein asto whether the teartier, who obtained B.Ed. ExaminaUon Certificate on her own expenses, is entiUed to faw advance Increments. According to leamed counsel for ttie peBttoner, Ihe peBfioner fs enfitletf to two advance increments in view of the deciston ofthis Court in the case of Yashwant KumarBharadwaj Vs. MimiclpalCorporatton, Durgand another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the case of Yashviart Kumar Bharachraj Vs. Municipat Corporatfon, Durg and anottier (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed. /B.T.I. E)aiminafion CerBflcate on ttieir own ecpenses, are covered by Bie circuter dated 24.12.M (Annwure P/7) issued by fte State Govemment of Madhya Pradesh. Leamed counsel for the petitkmer further submils that ttie facls and questfon of law invoh/ed in the present case are squarefy covered by ctecision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), to whidi leamed counset appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by leamed counsel appearing forthe peUUoner. Accordii^ly, the writ petttion is aHowed in terms ofthe order (»ssedin the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Munidpal Cfflrporatlon, Durg and another (Supra), subjeet to verificaUon of ttie fact as to whrther ftie petMoner has acquired 8. Ed. ExaminaUon Ceifificate on her own eiqienses as per the circulars datad 24.12.1998 & 1.3.18W and further whether she has been pakl two advance incremwils or nol. No ardw as tocosls. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge