(^, ^_ S<ngte Beneh IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. il530 /2009 fS.B.l PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Lalit Ram Kaushal, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Kaushal, Aged about 43 years, Head Master, Primary School, Khalgarh, Block Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus : If StQite of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Dhamtari, Distt. Dhanitari ,(C.G.) Block Education Officer Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^:'^ ...^ .-:^"^ -?^^ ^^ /" 2. 3. ^-^^^^•^^•^iaS&^S f ^G. HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BJLASPUR (Hon. !VIr. Justice Prltinker Diwaker) Writ Petitiort (S) No. 4530 of 2009 PETETIONER Lafit Ram Kaushal. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. l-1 Shri Somkant Verma counsej for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents/State. WRST PETSTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA ORDER (21.08.2009) With the consent of the counsef for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner is aggrieved by non payment of two advance increments for having obtained D.Ed. examination certificate at his own expenses in the month of October 2002. Counsel for the petitioner as weil as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fact and question of law invoived in the present case are the same to that of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in {2006 (il) MPJR-CG 96}, which has been disposed of vide order dated 3.4.2006. Subsequently, in Writ Petition (S) No. 4130 of 2005 in the matter of (Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected matters, decided by this Court on 15.12.2006, pursuantto the memo dated 28.1.1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopai and the prospectus of Diploma in Education Examjnation, it was ciarified that the nomenclature of the Basic Training Institute i.e. BTI has been changed and renamed as Dipioma in Education i.e. D.Ed. Accordingty, the D.Ed. certificate hotders are also covered by the decision in Writ Petition (S) 4130 of 2005 (supra). Accordingiy, the writ petition is aiiowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) subject to verification of the facts as to whether the petitioner has acquired D.Ed. examination certificate at his own expenses as per the circular dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. -— Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge ^f\» l