$1? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR w.P. (S) No. 6650 or 2007 PETITIERS 1 Subhas Chandra Sauraj S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Sauraj, Age about 33 years, R/o Working as post of Assistant Teacher, Kishanpara Navapara (Rajim) Distt—Raipur (C‘GJ 2 Vijay Kumar Sahu, Sf o Shn' Sumer Ram Sahu age about 31 years, R/o post of Assistant Teacher Govt. }3rimaly School, Parsada, (Ghonth) Block Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Through Secretary, Educational Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Distt~ Raipur (C.G.) 2 District Education Oiiicer, Raipur, Distt—Raipur (C. G.) Block Education O$cer Abhanpur, Tah—Abhanpur, Distt—Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Amit Shanna, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (02.11.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have passed D.Ed. examination on their own expenses, therefore, they are entitled to receive two advance increments according to circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999. He also submits that in many identical matters, the petitions have been allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwai Vs. Municipal Corporation) Durg and another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. He submits ON g$ w.P.(S) No. 6650/2007 that the case of the petitioners is squareiy covered by the said judgment. This legal position is not disputed by the leamed counsel for the State. However, he submits that the order may be passed in terms of the said judgment, but it shall be subjected to verification regarding petitionérs’ such qualiiication. Accordingly, this wn't petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Corporation, Durg and another (Supra) subject to verification of the facts if V ' M1nicipal as to whether the petitioners had acquired D.Ed. Examination Certificate on their own expenses as per circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. of. No order as to costs. The petition stands finaily (iisposed Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti