ZL •cfr IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fST No. ^9)^ / 2007 PETITIONER ^' ^^••^ ^v^y ^ ..-•i^r ^-^""^•'' ^y.. <!<c"..&-' ..Av- 'sv Lekhram Dansena S/o. Shn' Prahlad Dansena '^''"" ' """" ----- Aged about 41years Post-Assistant Teacher R/o. Village -Tetikot, Tahsil Kharsia & District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS r :1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raigarh .District Raigarh (C.G.) Block Education Officer Block-^arsia District-Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN U/A 226 OE THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIQNS HKH COURT OF CHHATraSfiARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (5) No. 938 of 2007 Petitioner Lekhram Dcnsena Versus Respondents Sta-te of Chhattisgarh & others Single Bench: 1-lon'ble AAr. Justice Satish K. Ayuhotri. AAr. Anil Mourya. Advocate for ihe Petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel tawyer for the Stcrte/respondents. OftOER (Passed on this 20" doy of Februmy, 2007) 1. The petitioner is working os Assistont Teacher-; in the Sovemment Primary School Telikot, Bkwk-Kharsia, Disrict- Roigarh. In the course of •their services as Assislant Teachepi>, the petitioner has obtnmed D.Ed. Examination Certificates in •the year 1996, on •their owi expenses. 2. Laimed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question invoh^ed, herein asto whether the tBachers, who obtonned D.Ed. Examination Certificates on tteir own expenses, is entitled to two advonce increments. 3. According to teamed counsel for the petitioner. the petitioner is entitled to two advonce incremcsnts in view of the decision of this Court- in -the case of Vashwant Kuinar Bharodw<y Vs. Afejnicipal Corporation, S^vg and another {2006 01} MPJR-C6 96}. This Court- in the cose of Yashuwnt Kumar Hiaradtiiaj Vs. Munici|%»lCorporatiwi, burg aind onother (Supra), came to thie conclusion that the taichers, who had obtnined B. Ed. /B.T.I. E?«iminationCertificate on •their otm expenses, are covered by the circular dated 24.12.98 iaued by the State Sovemment of Madhya Pradesh. Ih subsapient coses, i.e., Writ Petition (5.) No.4130 of 2W»(Sopfsh Kwiw Veiwa vs. Tlve Siwte 6wf. af QihatHsgmit and aiwthei) and other connected matfrers, decided by this Court on 15-12-2006, pursuont to the memo dated 28-1-1995, issued by 1tie Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal amil the prospeetus of Dipbma m Education Examination, it was ctarified that the nomenclature of the Basic Traming Instituta, Le., B.T.I. has been chonged and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e., t>.Ed. Accordingly, the D.Ed. Certificate hotcters are, also covered by the decision h Writ Petition (S.) No.4130 of 2005 (.ffiyesh Kww Vermam. TTw Stats 6wt. of Chhani^a»itand aiwthei^ (5iq»ra). Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that the facts and question of law involved in the present case is squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kunwr Bhdradwa^ Vs. Municipal Corporation. Dupg cmd anothw (Supru), •to which learned counsel appearing for the re^ondents fairly concedes cnd agrees with the averment made by leamed counsel aj^waring for the petitioner. 'S^^^Sl^SWIWSSiWWIHI»ei»VtliVW»HiMWHlM»aia»s»UHiaiiiamiii»iiiiiw 6. Accordingly, th* writ petition is allowed in terms of Ihe order posaed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhoradtwy Vs. Corporotion. Dt»g and auwther (Supra), subject to verificatiGn of •the fact as to whelher the petitioners have wyiired 0. Ed. Examination Cert-ificates on their own expenses as per •the circukirs dated 24.12.1998 & 1.3.1999 cnd further whether they have been poiid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Subhash Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^BaaB^BflUMWB^alNBBNBItBINMNIIINUhlt^