l’ETITIONERS 1 RESP6NDENTS ’ Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India Appearance: Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance copy. 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2204 of 2008 Khelan Das Netam S/o Shri Ganyat Ram Netam Age about 39 years, Asstt. TeachGr, Govt. Primary School, Job, Block— Chhuriya, Distt. - Rajilandgaon (C. G.) Makhan La} Sonwani S/o Shn' Ramlal Sonwam’ Age about 37 years, Asstt. Teacher Govt. Primaxy School, Chikaniyatoia, Biock —- Gaureia, Distt. ~ Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus State Govt .of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretaxy, Education at. Tribal Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipuuco.) Distn'ct Education Oiiicer, Distt. - Rajnaudgaon (C. G.) Asstt. Commissioner, Tribal Wolfaxe Department, Distt. — Bilaspur (C.G.) Shn' Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners, 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 24.121998 and 01.03.1999. He als om ORDER (15.04.2008) /~»r. o submits that in many identical matters, the peiitions have been allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar BharadwQi Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another {2006 (H) MJR-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 ‘?5 r a - ayv 4, I . 2 @ wmsy No. 2204 of 2008 terms of th€ said judgment, but it shall be subjected to VCrjftcau'on regarding pethioners’ such quaHfication. Accordingly, the writ petition 1s allowed 1'11 terms of the order passed in case of Yashwam Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Coiporaticn, Durg and another (Supra) subject to the vermcation 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 and 01.03.1999 and iiirther whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. The petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ,/ Emmi