"-V ^ ir^ CP In the Hon'ble Hieh Court ofJudicature of Chhattisearh at BUasBurfC.G.) W.P.NO. ^s'2,3 2006 0 ":;^>" ^'' ^^^.•••" ^y^-" &'»'%esuondents Petitioner .°•' <-;'l Ram Kristma Sahu, aged 50 years,^- Son of Shri Punaram Sahu, t/'.^f^'"''' ..•• Assistant Teacher, Ggovt. Primary ^•'^4..--"" School, Kokadhi, \o\s?- Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) h--^ VERSUS -1. ^'.'^ ^. y The State Government ofChhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Ministiy, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Durg ./ 3. Block Education OfGcer,!? b-^, DistrictDurg (C.G.) "O^ Ovy Writ Petition Under Articles 226/227 ofThe Constitution Oflndia for the issuance of WRIT in thenature ofMANDAMUS certiorari. ProhibWon and for other suitable writ or writs, order or orders, direcffon or directions. The petitioner most respectfully fumishes the particiilars ofthe writ petition as under: - HI6HCOURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner W. P. (s) No. 5083 of 2006 Ram Krishna Sahu Versus The State Sovernment of Chhattisgarh i& others Single Beach: Hon'ble AAr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Ajay Shrivostava, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. 6oyt. Advocate for the respondents/State. OR&ER tv-ls >+h (18" September, 2006) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while working as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner has gone on training to improve his qualifications on his own expenses and acquirod B.T.I. Examination Certificate in the year 1992 from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, ^adhya Pradedi, Bhopal. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of •riiis Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. AAunicipal Corporation, burg and anothsr {2006 (11) MPJR-C6 96}. Thls Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), cama to the conelusion that the teachers, who had obtained 3.T.I. y Examinoition Certificate on his own expenses, are covered by the circular dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/2) issued by the State ©overnmentof AAadhya Pradesh 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the •facts md question of law involved in the present case are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Ycishwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and dnother (Supra), to which learned counsel appeoring for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by !earned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. AAunicipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired B.T.I. Examination Certificate on his own expenses or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- . .,; SattehK.A^OW ludge Thakur