3...--;'^.t^- ^^^<y"^- :'.7-:"1£^^'....--""" --"'c^-^'t».fc'--"" @^^t; "V ^U^-^^Sf. u«:nf® ^s>fy y«~- yf ^l crei 'A--"" (2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT^ETITION (S) N0^ ° ^/2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Tuka Ram Chandrakar^ S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Chandrakar Age about42 years, Asstt.Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Bangoli, Block - Tilda, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh ^ Through: Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dlstrict Education Officer f' Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner most humbly submit as under:- @ '^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fSl No. 5635 of 2006 Petitioner ; Meghanath Yadaw Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of ChhattiS9nrh A ano'ther W. P. f5) No. 5636 of 2006 Petitioner ; Gaj/adhw Prasnd Sohu Versus Respondents : State 6ovt. of OihatMagarh A onolher W. P.fS^No. 5637 of 2006 Petitioner Ranwahankar Supta Versus Reapondenta : State6<>vt.ofChhattia9arhAano'ther W.P.(aNo.5638ofZ006 Petitionw Tcekam Lal Sinha Versus Reapondents : Slate6ovt.ofChhat*M9arhAano'thcr W. P.fSiNo. 5639 of 2006 : Smt. SunitaPnl Petitioner Respondents Versus : StateSovt.ofChhattisgorhAono'ther W. P. (5)No. 5640 6f 2006 Mohboob Khun Qunashi Petitioner : Veraus Respondents : Sta*e6wt.ofCWNrttiagBrhAano'ther W. P.fStNo. 8641 of 2006 Ptetitioner : Smt. JageSfuri Bhagel Veraua Respondcnts : StirtcSovt.ofChhotMaigarhAawthcr W. P.fStNo. 5642 of 2006 Petitionw : Tulendra Kumar TnNri Versus (teapondents : Stnte 6ovt. of Chhatfisgarh d ano'ther W.P.(S)No.S643 of 2006 Petitioner Ramaytcr yadawu Venus Respondents : Stttte6ovt.ofCWwtt«agarhAano1her RrNtionw Reapondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondcnts Petitwner ReapondBnts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Reapondwrts Petitioner Respondents W.P.faNo.5644i>fa)06 : AnujRamSohu Verais : Steteeovt.ofChhattisgarhAono-ther W. P.fS)No. 5646 of 2006 Rnjendra Kumw Supta Versus : Sttrte 6wt. of Chhattiagarh & aholhcr W. P.fSlNo. 5647 of 2006 : SharadTiinri Versus : State 6ovt. of ChhuttiS9arh A ono-ther W. P.0No. 5648 of 2006 : MohendroPrasndShukki Versus : S*n*e6ovt.ofChhctttegarhAomrth€r W. P.^No. 5673 of 2006 ; fiunbheoahnn Sohu Versus Stute 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh A another W.P.fS^No.5674ofa)06 : Snt. Jayu Tiwiuri Versus : Stete6ovt.ofChho*tiS9nrhAano-ther W.P.fSlbto. 5675 of 2006 Tuka ftam Chandrakar Versus State fiovt. of Chhattiagarh A ano'ther W. P.f5»No.5676 of 2006 Rnmesh Kunaar Verma Verais : Statefiovt.ofChhattisgnrhAono'ther And W.P.(aNo.5677ofa)06 Versus Dhanaoy Patel Statc 6wt. of Chhattiagarh Aanother / 'q\ Singto Bmidi: Hon'ble Vur. JusticB Sattak K. AgrihoW. 5hri Ajay Shrivastavu, Advocatte for Ihe Pctitioners. Snt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. 6ovt. Adwcotte for Ihe reapondenta/Staite. OR&ER (26t1'0croter.2006) 1. Leomed counsel oppearing for •the petitioners aibmrts that while «»wkin9 as Assistant TeachwsAJpper Dwision TeachersA-eehirers, •the petitioners haw gant on truinirg to improw •theu- quaUficartions on their wim expuues and act|uired B. Ed7B.TJ Examinort'ien Certificate. ^"- Tlie present writ petitions. being WJ»<§)Nos. 56^/2006, 5636/2006,5637/2006. 5638/2006. 8639/2006,5640/2006. 564V2006. 5642/2006, 5643/2006, 5644/2006, 5646/2006. 5647/2006, 5648/2006. 5673/2006.5674/2006,5675/2(X»^ 5676/2006 and 5677/2006 inwlw aimilar faets and commori question of kw». Thus, theae petitions crc being dispcsed of by •rtiis common order. Accordmg to learned counscl for 'the petrtioners, Ihe petitionera are entitled to Iwo odvnnce increments in view of 1he decision of •this Court in the c<ue of Yaah»iunt Kuniar Bharudwnj Vs. Municipal Corporution, Durg and anolher {2006 (0) MPJR-C6 96}. This Court in the case of yaahwnnt Kumtr Bharodwaj Vs. Municipul Corporation. Durg ond arwrtw Ss. (Supra). caane *o tiie conchision Ihait Ihe teoehws, who had obtained B.Ed./B.TJ. Exammation Certificate on his owm expenses, are cowred by •the drcular dated 24.12^8 isaued by •the State Sovemment of Atadhya PradMh. 4. Leamed counael for •the petitiomsra further submita Ihat Ihe facts and quesliBn of lm» inwlved in 1h« present cas^ ore squandy covered by decision af •this Court' h •the cnae of y<«aht»antKumur Bharadwiy Vs. Municyal Corpanrtion, Durg ond ano-ther (Supra), to which leummi couirl oppearing for the reapondents fnirly concedes and agrces «ri'ththe cwerment niade by leamed counsel oppearing for Ihe pirtitioners. 5. Accordingly, Itie writ petitions are allewed in termS of Ihe ordu- pussed in •the oase of Yaahtinit Kunier Bharudwnj Vs. Municipcd Corporation, Our9 and cno'ther (5upn»), aibject te verifkartion of •the fact as to ohelher 1h« petrrtona'd haw acquired B. Ed7B.TJ. &<BBninatwn Cu'tificate on •rtieir own cxpenaes or not. No order as to costs. 6. A copy of -Ihis ordw be pkxced on record of ®1herconnc<?l€d writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu