i, s/o Shri Gajendar Gupta, aged about 43 years, Asslstant "eacher, Primary Schooi, Ghanatarai, lock Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). Santosh Kurnar Sao, s/o Shri Baiakram Sao, aged about 48 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi Bade Hardi, BIock Pussore, Dlstt. Raigarh (C.G) 3. Diieshwar Prasad Sao, s/6 Shri ihupdev Sao, aged about 48 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt.- Primary' Schooi Ghanatarai, Block Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). 4. Subhash Chandra Hota, s/o Shri Sheshcharan Hota, aged about 48 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School Netnagar, BSock Pussore, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G). 5. Ish'.var Sethi, s/o Shri Sanatan Sethi, aged about 48 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schoo!, shathanpali, Block Pussore, Dislt. Raigarh (C.G). 6. Sudama Sahu, s/o Shri Sadhaw Lal Sahu, aged about 34 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Navapara, Biock Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G) 7. Durbasa Mishra s/o Shri Devdutta tvlishra, aged about 47 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schoo! Chhapora, Biock Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). Jeewan Prasad Pate!, s/o Shri Chaitram Patei, aaed about 48 Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi, Chhich, Block Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). Subhash IVishra, s/o Shri Shriram Mishra, aged about 47 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi Dhanuhardera, B.iock Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). Goku! Prasad Panda, s/o Shri Chitrasen Panda, aged about 46 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi, Rengaipali, Biock, Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). W.P(S) NaS918/07 ;1^ State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Schooi Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Raigarh, disit.Raigarh (C.G) Biock Education Officer, Pussore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). IT PETSTION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF Shri Dhani Ram Patel, Counse! forthe petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondents on ad'/ance copy. ORALORDER (21.11.2007) SUN1L KUMAR SiNHA. j Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have passed D.Ed., examination on t'neir own expenses, therefore, they are entitled to receive two advance increments according to cireulars dated 24.12.1998 & 01 .3.1999. He aiso submits that in many icfenticai matters, the petitions have been ailowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipai Corporation, Durg and another (2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96). He submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said decision. This legal position Is not dlsputed by iearned counsei for the State. However, he submits that the order may be passed in terms of the said judgment, but it shaii be subject to verification regarding petitioners' such quaiification. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in case of Yashwant Kumar Bhara'waj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (supra) subject to verifacation of the facts as to whether the petitioners had acquired D.Ed., Examination Certificate on their own expenses as per circulars dated 24.12.1998 & 01.3.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. This petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Siuha Judge