Vln the Honble Hlqh Court of Chhattlshqarh at Bllaspur (C G) WP. (S) No. (2% 2006 §L Smt Anuradha Pandey Aged 37 years W/O Shrl VIVIkPrakash Sharma, Assistant Teacher, Govt. M.G.—1 Middle School, Durg, ,District, Durg (C-G-) VERSUS i. Pettioner kg) $°Respondent 1.The State Government of Chhattishgarh, / Throughvthe Secretary, Education Department o?‘ D.KS Bhavan Raipur(C.G.) Co 31 iwQ w l ii 7 2 The Bieek Education Officer @EK %\V\ef€"3$ f Durg (C G) ,(/ rlt petition under articies 226l$ o_f the Constitution of India for issuance gj writ i_i1 the nature 9f MANDAMUS, Certiorari, Prohibition and other suitable WRIT or writs, Order g order; Direction 9_r directions. e _J ‘ v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. 5ATI$H K. AGNIHOTRI J. WRIT PETITION (s) NO. 669 OF 2007 Pe'rifioners 1 Shiv La! Chandra and ofhers versus Responden'rs : Sfnfe Govt of Chha'rfisgurh and ofhers WRIT PETITION (s) NO. 670 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION (s) NO. 671 OF 2007 5m. Anurcdha Pandey VBP$LIS The SmTe Governmen‘r of Chha‘H‘isgarh and anorher And WRIT PETITION (s) NO. 672 OF 2007 Presenf : Mr. Somkon‘l’ Vermu, counsel for The pe'l'ifioners. Ms. Suni‘ra Jain, Panel lawyer for fhe Sfate/ respondents. 0 R D E R (Passed on 1his 6*“ Day of February, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for fhe pe'ri'l’ioners o5 well as learned Penal lawyer appearing for The respondenfs/Sfa‘l’e join‘l’ly submlf fha‘r 'H1e facfs and question of law involved in The presen‘r wri‘r pefifion are squarely covered by fhe decision of fhis Cour? in fine Pe‘rifioner : Ku. Rama Sudha Rami'eke versus Respondenfs : Smfe Govt cf Chhm‘fisgarh md another Pe‘rifioner : DiEeep Kumar Var-ma versus Responden'rs : The Smfe Govt of Chhmisgarh and others Thakur' 1 case of Yaslxwanf Kumar Bhamdwaj vs. Municipal Comm-dim, Dwy and anaffmr‘. ’ Learned counse} appearing for ‘rhe perifioners has poinfed out 'I'he circular dafed 13.9.1974 (Annexure P/1), whereunder according fa The pefifioners, fhe pem’ioners, who had ob'mined BEd. Examinafion Cerfifica‘fes before oppoin‘fmenf, are dso enfifled 1o two advance incremen‘rs. The responden‘rs/Sfafe, while considering +he cases of The pefi‘rioners, shali gran? ihe relief, in accordance with 1’he circular (supra). For The aforemen'fioned reasons, fhese wrh‘ pefitions are disposed of in Terms of 'rhe decision of fhis Courf in 1he ma'f‘ier of Yashwanf Kumar Bharadwaj (supra), subjec'i To verification of 'fhe facf asfo whe‘l’her fhe pefi‘rioners have acquired B.EdV/B.T.I. Cerfificafes a1’ 1heir own expenses as per fhe circulars da'l'ed 24-12-1998 and 1-3—1999 and furfher whe'l'her rhey have been paid Two advance incremen'is or not No order as 1'0 cos‘rs. A copy of ‘l’his order be placed on record in connected wri‘r pe‘l’l‘l’lOnS. Sd/_ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96