HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH. BILASPIIR W.P. (81 No.7390 of 3007 PBTITIONERS a. 3. 4. RE8PONDEIIT8 2 3 Gajnii Ram Sahii, agc about 46 years, Assistant Teacher S/o Shri Samay Lal Sahu Govt, Prunaiy School Nari, Block Beinetara, District Diu^(CG) Gokul Prasad Sharma, Agc about 52 years, Assistent Teacher s/o Shii Lakhan Lal Sharma, Govt Priinary School Pendri Block Beinetara, Distnct Duig(CG) Pramod Kumar Tiwan, aged about 46 years, Assistaat Teacher, S/o Late Shri Kristma Piasad Tiwan Govt. Primary School Khudiniidi, block Benietara, Distnct Diu-g(CG) Tikam Ram Yadav Age about 34 years, Assistaat Teacher, s/o Shri Chcdilal Yadav Govt. Primarv School Marjadpur Block Benietara, District DvagfCG) Versus State Govemment of Cbhattisgarh, Tribal Welfare Education Bhawaa, Through Secretaiy, Department & Deparfaaent, D.K.S. District Raipur (C.G.) D^trict Education Ofi&cer, Bemetara, District DIII^(CG) Block Education Officer, Beatetara, District Durg(CG) WRIT PETITION UMDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE COKSTITUTION OFIHDIA Atwearaace: Shri Soinkant Verma, connsel for the petitioners. Ms. Suoita Jain, Paael Lawyer for fhe Stetc on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (13.12.2007) 8UWIL KUMAR SINHA, J HFArd on admission. Leamed coiinsel for tlie petitioncrs subinits that thc petitioners have passed D.F-d. cxainination on tlieir own expenses, cv- •2- WP(S) 7390/2007 t.herefore, ttiey are entitled to receive two advance incretuents accoriing to circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999. He also subnuts that. in many identical niatters, the petitions have been allowed in temis of the order passed in the case of Tinshtaant Kwnar Sheweidwcii Vs. Jttunlcipetl Corporatton. Dum and another {3006 IE9 JOPJR-CQ 96}. He submits that the case offhc petitioncrs is squarely covered by the said jiidginent. This legal position is not disputed by ttic leamcd counsel for fhc State. However, she subTnits tltat the order may be passed in tenns offhe said judgment, hut it sball bc siibjected to verificatron regarding petitioners' siich qiialificatioTi. Accordingly, tliis writ petition is allowed in terras of the onler passed in case of Yashwant Kumar fVuirachiiaj Vs. Mumdpal Corporalmn, Thtrg cmd. arwther (Supra) subject to verification of the facts a.s to whether thc petitioners hari acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificates on their own expenses as pcr circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and fiirther whcther they have been paid two advance increnients or not. The petitiou stands fiTially disposed of. No (^rier as to cqsts. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Sunita