@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR writ Petition gs} No. 2200 o'r 2008 PETITIONERS 1 Patalu Ram Sao S/o Shri Sonu Ram Sao Age about 52 years, U.D.T., Govt. Middle School, Mahloi, Tahsil - Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) B.P. Sahu S/o Shri Dhamm $h1gh Sahu Age about 53 years, Head Master Govt. Middle School, Mahloi, Tahsil -— Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh {C.G.) Smt. Meera Swaxnkar W/o Shn' Naresh Chandra Swamkar Age about 5O years, L.D.T., C/o Shri R.S. Sahu, Near Jila Panchayat Office, Chhote Attarmuda, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4 SR. Sarthi Sfo Shri F‘ul Chand Sarthi Age about 56 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Plimary School, Khumslenga, Tahsil — Tamnar, Distt. Rajgarh goo.) Versus RESP’ONDENT 1 State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretaxy, Education 8r. Tli‘bal Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipurmo.) District Education O$cer, Distt. Raigarh (co) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shn' Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Sint. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance COPY. ORAL ORDER (15.04.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have passed B.’I‘.I. 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 S 2 W.P.(S) No. 2200 of 2008 Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Duty and another {2006 (m W.IR¥CG 96}. He submits that their case is squarely covered by the said Judgment. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. However, she submits that the order may be passed in terms of the said judgment, but it shall be subjected to veriiication regarding petitioners’ such quah‘fication. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in case of Yashwant Kumar Bhamdwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra) subject to the vexiilcation of the facts as to whether the petitioners had acquired B.T.I. Examination Certiflcate 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. The petition stands flnally disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Bimw