^v^iL^^ -" c'rii%-" \'"'.-'" B£K! c^- i^z^ IIS^THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONJNO._^S%>/2006 PETITIONER T^ Ku. Lata Dewangan B/o Shri Bandu Lal Dewangan Age about 47 years, Asstt.Teacher, Govt. PrimarySchool, Chhadiya, Block - Tilda, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer . Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTC HI^H COURT OF CHH^Tn:SeARy_AT_BIL_4SPUR W. P. (5) No. 5594 of 2006 Petitioner : Kamta Prasad Sahu Versus Respondents : State Sovt. of Chhattisgarh W. P.?S)No. 5595 of 2006 Responder Petitioner Petitioner Peti+ioner Petitioner Po+i+i eTiTi State 6ovt. of W. P. (S) No. 5596 of 2006 Versus . of Chha+tiss W_P^rsl ^5.597of^006 Bhagwsn Dut* Navronge Versus State Sovt. of Chhattisqarh W. P. (5) No, 5598 of 2006 Shesh Kumar Mahilang Versus State Sovt. of Chhattisgarh & ano-rtier W. P. (S) No. 5599 of 2006 tAonharan Lal Verma Versus 5+ate ©ovt.of Chhattisgarh W. P. ('S) No. 9600 of 2006 Ku. Lcsta Oewangan Versus State Sovt. of Chhattisqarh ¥/.P. (5) No.5601 of 2006 Moti Lai Dhruv Stcte ©ovt.of Chhattisc W. P. (S) No. 9602 of 2006 Respondents Petitioner W. P.f5)No. 5603 of. 2006 Jagdish Prasad 5en Versus State $ovt. of Chhattisgcrh & another" Sina!®Bench: S-lon'ble h\r. Justice Satish K. Agriihotri. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the Petitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. <?ovt. Advocate for the respondents/State. \ 1. OR & E R (12th October, 2006) counsel appearing for the >4-i while working as Assistant Teachers/Upper Division Teachers, the petitioners have gone on training to improve their qusiifications on their own expenses ond acquired 3. Ed./B.TJ :xamination i"ertificate 2. The present writ petjtions, being W.P.(S) Nos. 5594/2006, 5595/2006.5596/2006,5597/2006,5598/2006,5599/2006, 5600/2006, 5601/2006, 5602/2006, <md 5603/2006 involve simitsr facts and common question of !aw. Thus, these setitions are being di'sposed of by this common order. 3. According to Searned counse! for the petjtioners, the petltioners are entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of this Court in the cass of Yashwant Kumar Iharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporati'on, &urg and another {2006 CEI) MPJR-C6 96). This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar iharadwaj Vs. Municipal CorporatEon, Durg and another (Supro), came to the conclusion fhat the teachers, who obtained B.Ed./B.T.!. Examination Certificate on his own expenses, are covered by the circular dated 24.12.98 isaied by the State Sovemment of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Learned coun^! for the petltioners further submits -Hiat the facts and question of !aw invotved in the present cases are squarely covered by decision of this Court in 1+ie case of Yadiwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and onother (Supra), to which lesrned counse! appenring for the responcfents fairly concedes cnd agrees with the averment made by fearned counsel appearing for the petltioners. 5. Accordingly, 1+ie writ petitjons are allowed in terms of -tfie order passed En the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipa! Corporotion, Durg and another (Supro), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B.Ed./B.TJ. Examination Certificate on their own expenses or not. No order as to costs. 6. A copy of this order be phced on record of other connected writ petitlons. _ __— Bcblu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge