^^r.'--^- s^&^-'-" ^seEvu.i S.A&,u. -'-••..:;^ r^Js^^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR l_PSSo^_!_/M /2009- fS.B.) PETITIONE^ -^^ ,\>>..-}"'>^.-1"'"' ,.-•"' ^^ •-^1?; <^..-" ^- w ^^-- VERSUS Mr'igendra Sharma, S/d Shri Chandrapyare Sharma, aged about 37 .years, R/o Gali No. 3 c^ Bangali Para Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 2". State of Chhattisgarh , Through Secretary , Education Departtnent , D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Director of public Instruction , Pensionbada Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA &) hffi6HCOURT OFCHHATTESeARH ATKtbtSPUR W.P.(aNo.918of2007 Petitioner ; Mrigendru 5hwnna Versus Stote of aiharttisgcrh Aanothw Siisite Bench: Hon1>le Mr. Justice SaMsh K. 4gmhotri. Shri Kumaresh Titiiari, Adn>cute for IhePetitioner. Ms. Sini+a Jain, Pianel Lcn»yerfor the State/respondwrts. OR D ER 1. Passed on ihis 19ttl Day ®fFebnwry. 2007) Leamed counsel appeoB'irq for 1fte petitioner aubmits Kwt 1*ie petitwner is working as Asastant Teacher/Leeh.rer under •the department of re^onctent hk>. 1. Thc petitioner oblomed B. Ed. Exammotion cert-rfictrte on 27.3.1996. on his own expaises. 2. Leamed counsel cppearing for 1he petitioner sutxnrte -that Ihc questfon hvohwd, herem,asto whether the teacher, who obtouned B. Ed. Excunination Certificate on his own oqienses, is entitled to Iwo advance mcrements. 3. According to ledrned counsel for •the petltioner, Ihe petitioner is entrHed to Iwo advunee increnients h view of •the deeison of Ihis Court- m the caae of yashirant Kumar BhcraAw^ Vs. Munic^iat Corporutton. Durg and anothw {2006 01) MPJR-C6 96}. TTiJsCowt h the case of Yadwwnt Kumcr Bharadwu^ Vs. Munidpal CBtT»r«Mon, Ourg and (molha' (5upra), came to the conctusien •that •lhetead'tfi^< ««hohad obtouned B. Ed. /B.TJ. Exiamhiutwn CerMficate on •their wn expenses, are covered by the circutar drted 24.12.98 iasued by •the State Sovemmait of Mauhya Pradesh. 4. Leamed counset for •Ihe petitioner furlher arianuts •that •Ihe facts and questfon of lcwm nyolved h Ihe present eaae ere aquariety covered by decirion af 1his Cwjrl' h Ihe case of yashwant Kuinar Bharadw«j Vs. Munldpal CorponrHon. Durg and anothu" (Sipra), to wihich teamed counsel appearffg for -the respondmts ftwly comedes and agrees with Ifie owennent mode by leamed counsel oppeering for •the peWioner. 5. Accordingly, •the writ petition is allowed h tenns of Ihe ordw passed in the case of yashwant Kumar BharadNwy Vs. Nhinidpal Co«"p<wation. Ourg sind anathcr (Supra), siAject to vwifjcaMon of •the fact as to whether -the petitioner has ac^jired B. Ed. Exumhwtion Certificate on his o*m expenses as per •the circulars dated 24.12J996 A 1.3.1999 and furlher tihelher he has been paid •hw advnrwe mcrements or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge &*bhMh