HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (8) No.7495 of 2007 PETITIONER Smt. Sadhna Pradhaa (Before Marriage Sadluia Shrivastava), aged about 40 years, Lecturer, w/o Shri Ashok Piadhan, 7 Akbar Khaa ChaB Near Mission Hospital, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C,G). Versus 1 State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Ss Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 Director of Public lustruction, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G). 3. District Education. Ofl6cer, Bilaspur, Distt. Bflaspur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance:» Shr Ajay Shrivastava, couasel for fhe petitioner. Ms. Suuita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents on advaace copy. o (17.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J Heard on adnussion. Learaed couasel for fhe petitioner submits that ffae petitioner has passed M.Ed. examination on her own expenses, therefore, she is entiUed to receive two advance uicreiiients accordmg to circulars dated 24.12.1998 & 01.03.1999. He also subxnits fhat iu jmany identical inatters, fhe petitions have been aUowed in terms of fhe order passed ia the case of Ycishwtint Kunwr BHareuSweij Vs. inicipal CorporaUon, Duns and another {2006 (3EQ MPJK-CG 96}. He submits that the case of fhe petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment. This legal position is not disputed by fhe leamed couusel for fhe State. However, he subiaits fhat the order may be passed iu tenns of the said judginent, but it shall be subject to yeri&cation regardiag petitioner's sucti qualilication. ^.ls^ -2- Writ Petitlpn (81 No.7495 of 2007 Accordiagly, this writ petition is aUowed ia tenus of the order passed ia case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Munidpat Coiporation, Durg and another (Supra) subject to verification of fh.e facts as to whether fhe petitioner had acquired M.Ed., Examiaation Certificate OE her own expeases as per circulars dated 24.12.1998 & 01.03.1999 aad furfher whether she has been paid two advance iacreinents or not. The petition stands finaUy disposed of. No order as to costs. —— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /Rao/