^c^ 'f ^7' ^'-^ '^, HJGH COURT OF CHH&TTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P. (Sl No. 6561 of 2007 PETITIONERS ^- 1 Lure Das Chaadane S/o Shri Kahen Raui Chandane, Age about 44 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Tandul, Block - Arang, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2 Bhaslikai- Rao Gwal S/o Late Shri Anand Ram Gwal, Age about 38 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Priinaiy School, Bhatiya, Block Araag, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 3 Basaat Rao Pawar S/o Shri Krishna Rao Pawar, Age about 43 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Ghorbhatti, Block Arang, Dist. - Ralpiir (C.G.) 4 Mohit Kumar Dewaagaa, S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Dewaiigan, Age about 29 years, Asstt. Teacber, Govt. Prtmary School, Beiiidih, Block - Arang, Distt. - Raipiu- (C.G.) 5 Gulab Singh Dhruw S/o Shri Birjhu Rani Dhruw, Age about 41 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Pruaary School, Chhatera, Block Arang, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 6 Chaadrika Prasad Banjare S/o Shri Hirau Ram Baujare, Age about 42 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Bancharoda, Block - Arang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 7 Ramkuinar Dheewar S/o Shn Juglal DIleewar, Age about 44 years, Asstt. Teacher, Gk>vt. Prixuaiy School, Khoisi, Block - Arsmg, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 8 Gaya Prasad Tiwan S/o SIiri Ratneshwar Prasad Tiwari, Age about 50 years, Asstfc Teacher, Govt. Primaiy School, Bartori, Block -Tilda, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDSNTS Versus State Govt. of Cbliattisgarh, Secretaiy, Education & Tnbal Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^i\ ^s^ W.P.(S)No. 6561/2007 ^- y' vatti 2 District Education OfBcer, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION^UNDBR ARTICI^ 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, coiuisel for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Singh, Paael Lawyer for the State on advance copy. ORALQKDBR (31.10.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J Heard on adHiission. Learaed counsel for the petitioners subniits that the petitioners have passed D.Ed. examination on their own expenses, therefore, they are entifted to receive two advance increments accordiug to circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999. He also submits that ia many identical inatters, fhe petitions have been aUowed iu terms of the order passed iu fhe case of ¥etshwtint Kunwr Bhartidweij Vs. Jffiurdcipal ConforaUon, Durq and another {2006 (IS MPJR-OG 96}. He submits fhat the case of fhe petitioners is squarely covered by the said judgment. TIus legal position is not disputed by fhe leamed counsel for fhe State. However, he subiaits that fhe order uiay be passed in tenas of fhe said judginent, but it shaB be subjected to verification regarduig petitioners' such qualification. Accordiagly, ttiis writ petition is aBowed in tenns of fhe order passed ia case of Yashwani Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Munidpal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra) subject to verification of fhe facts as to whether the petitioners had acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificate on fheir own expenses as per circulars dated 24. 12.1998 and 01.03.1999 aad further whefher fhey have been paid two advance iticreiaents or not. The petitioii stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge