WGH CQUR? GF CHHAYW$G$§ Q? %§LASPUR {Hon Ma Jaimice Pritmkav mwakar} (S) Writ Pemgon Na. 333a mi acca $E?5“ETG&EE% ’ Kaushal Pra$ad Swamakar. VERSUS RESPONE§EEW$ State 0f Chhatizisgarh and another" Shn‘ R0010 Naik counsei far the pati‘éicner. $hr§ $umesh Bajaj (3A for the respandentsfState, , ,. 225 .. E 6:? £MQ§A '0 R a E R (13.07.2009) Wiéh the consené of we oaunse§ for ihe pariies, ihe matter is haard finaéJy. The petitioner i3 aggrieved by non paymen‘t of We advance increments for having abtained DEd. examination cer‘téficate a‘: his 0mm expenses in the month of June 2007. Counsei for the pefitioner as weH as for the Stafefrespondente joinffy submit that the fact and quesfion of few fnvoived. in the present ease are the same to that of Yaehwent Kumar Bharadwaj vs. Muhicipai Corporation, Burg and another reported in {2006 (H) MPJR—CG g6}, which hae been disposed of vide order dated 3.4.2606. Subsequently, in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 in the matter of (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of C‘nhattisgarh and another) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on i5.t2.2006, pursuant to the memo dated 28.1.i§95, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopei and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examination, it was ciarified :tnat the nomenoiature of the Basic Training institute i.e. BT! has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Education i.e. DEd. Aooordingiy, the DEd. certificate hoiders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition.(8) 4130 of 2005 (supra). VR v Accerdir‘ugw, the writ petition is aliowed in tea‘ms of the order pa$sed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj ($u'pra) Subject to verificatton of the facts as to whether the petittoner has acquired DEd. examination certificate at his own expenses as per the circuiar dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.?999 and further whether he has been paid twe advance increments or not. f art i Pritinker Judge Diwaker ' l v Sd/— Ne order as to caste.