HIGH COURT OF CHHATSTSQARH.BILACTWR Writ Petitionffll Ho.5773/2007 Petltioaer 1. Siat. Shardha Tiwari w/o Shri Shrivendra Tiwan age about 39 years, UDT J.K. Daai G.6.H.S. School, Raipur(CG) 2. Ku. Neerja Tiwari(Now Smfc Mishra) w/o Shri R.D. Vaisluaav age about 46 years, UDT R/o 19/B, F-Pbcket, Maroda, Scctor, Bhflai(CG) 3, Smfc Neeta Mishra(Now) W/o Dr. A.K. Mishra, aye about 43 years, UDT, JRN Govt. HSS Rsmgrsw. Raipur(CG) 4. Siat Uraula Pandey(Ncw) w/o Shri Saajay Kumar Pandey ays about 38 years, UDT JR Dam, GG Hr. Sec. School, Raipur(CG) 5. Smt Anjana Dubey(Now) w/o Shri Suiul Dubey age about 38 yrs. UDT Govt MH School, Raipur, Raipiir(CG) 6. Smt Jyoti Awadhiya(Now) S/o Mr. Rajiv Awadhiya age about 38 years, UDT Govt. HSS School, Raipur, Raipur(CGr) 7. Mrs. Preeti Deshpande(Ncn^ w/o Mr. Anil V. Deshpaade, ay about 43 years, Lecturer R/o 15-A, Ravi Nagar, Shukla Colony, Raipur(CG) 8. Smt Madhu Gupta, w/o SUri P.K, Sengupta, Age about 51 year, Lecturcr R/o BTI Coloay, G-6, Shankar N^ar, Raipur(CG) Versus RBSPONDBNTS State Govt of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Secrelaiy, School Education Department, Miaistty, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raiptir (C.G) District Education Raipur (C.G) oflfccr, Writ oetition under Art|cle_ai26of.th®ConsUtutlpa of India WP(S)5773/2007 g>t> Appearance: Shri Somkaat Verma, counsel for ttie Petitioaers. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents on advance copy ORA1, ORDBR (2S.9.a007( SunU Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on admission. Learaed couasel for fhe petitioners subinits that the petitioners have passed B.Ed./B.T.I. examination oa thcir own expenses, fherefore, fhey are entifted to rcceive two advance increnients according to ciroulars dated 24.12.1998 and 01.03.1999. He also subinite fhat m many ideutical matters, the petitions have been attowed ia terms of the order passed in fhc case of Yaahwtint Kumeir Bharadwsd Vs. JUunictocd CoflaonaUon, .Darg tind mwther {2006 flD JMPJR-CG 96?. He subintts that the case ofthe petitioners M squarely covered by the said Judgment This legal position is not dteputed by the lcamed counsel for fhe State. However, he subiaits fhat thc order may be passed in terms offtie said judgaient, but it shall be subjected to verification regardmg petitioncrs' such quatt&cation. Accordir^ly, this writ petition is aUowed ia terms of the order passed ia case of Yashwant Kumar Bhctradwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and cinofher (Supra) subject to verification of the facts as to whether the petitioners had acqulred B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificates on their own expenses as per circulars dated 24.12.1998 aad 01.03.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance mcremcnts or ix>t. The petition stands fiaaUy disposed of. No order as to costs. -——-^— SunilKumarSinha Judge sunita