BIC"- C - UKT OF CHHATT‘ISGARH AT BHASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2764 of 2G0? PETITIONER :1. Subhash Chandra Verma, S/o Shri G.L.Verma Aged about 37 yearS, Assistant Teacher; Primary School — Balachhapar, Jashpumagar Block —’ iashpurnagar, Disit. — Jashpur ((16,) 2. Pankaj Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Harishankar Panday, Aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, 3.N.Hr. Sec. School Gamhariya, Jashpumagar Block, Jashpumagar Distt. — Jashpur (C.G.) % Sanjay Kama! Naudg S/e, Lam Shti Neelamber Nande, Aged about 36 years, ASSistant Teachag ,LNHL Sec, School Gamhariya, Jashpurnagar Block Jashyumagar Distt. — Jashnur (0G,) 4. Arun Kumar Bhagat S/o. Shri Jainath Ram Bhagata Aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, Midiile School Gamhariya Jashpumagag Block Jashpumagar, Distt: — Jashpur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1, State of Chhattisgarh & Others Through * The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, DKSr Bhawan, Raipur (CG) . Commissioner Tribal Weifare Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur. 3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Distt. — Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AR‘HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Single Bench : Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner, Sliri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed an 7m day of May, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that in respect of the oetitioner no. 2 and 3 namely Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey and Sanjay Kumar Nancie, no grievance survives as the State gg 2 Governmgnt hag alraady startgd paying increments as p6r law, With regard to petitioger no, 1 and 4} thsy have obtained B.T,I cairtjflcatc on their own, in tha course Ofthair servic‘e, 2: Lcarnad counssl appearing for the. petitionor as well as for tho State/rospoodcnts jointly submit that the fact and quoStion of 1aw involved in the present writ petition are: the same to that of in Yashwant Kmnar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another {2006 (II) MPJR—CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dared 03042006 Learned counsei appearing for the reepondenm does not eontrovert the saiti submission: 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms ofthe order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg anti another (Supra; subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired Bill" Examination Certitieate on their own expenses as per the cireulars dated 2412:1998 and 01 .033 999'and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. J Sd/— W Satish K.Agnihan~i f’ Judge \\