.4 (L-^i-^. ^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSlNO. ^^3) /20Q9(S.B.l PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Krishna Ram Markam, S/o Shri Manau Ram Markam, aged about 35 years, Occupation Upper Division Teacher Boys Middle School Belargaon Block Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus State of Through Education Chhattisgarh Secretary Department, / 2. D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Block Education Offlcer Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justsce Pritinker Diwalcer) Writ Petition (S$ No. 4531 of 2Q09 PETSTIONER Krishna Ram Markam. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Somkant Verma counsel for the petjtioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents/State. WRIT PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTgQN OF INDIA OR D E R (21.08.2009) With the consent of the counse! for the parties, the matter is heard flnaliy. The petitioner is aggrieved by non payment of two advance increments for having obtained D.Ed. examination certificate at his own expenses in the month of September 1999. Counsei for the petitioner as weii as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law involved in the present case are the same to that of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj vs. Municipai Corporation, Durg and another reported in {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 3.4.2006. Subsequently, in Writ Petitlon (S) No. 4130 of 2005 in the matter of (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15.12.2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28.1.1995, issued by v zl the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopai and the prospectus of Dipioma in Education Examination, it was ciarified thatthe nomendature ofthe Basic Training Institute i.e. BTi has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Education i.e. D.Ed. Accordingjy, the D.Ed. certlficate hoiders are also covered by the decision In Writ Petition (S) 4130 of 2005 (supra). Accordingiy, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) subject to verification of the facts as to whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. examination certificate at his own expenses as per the circuiar dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. —~ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge y