g C ma #111? H. gn‘m gmm%.—m 3m m5? @f‘3 W Em I WM: 6 3M“ a3wfr Wit-1r w w wam- graggg w ’WW ~a‘1‘ mre-Jaw @{an‘vmr‘a Tim vn'n m- magm‘rawmvn... -~— awwa‘r m I. m 51m m" Wm aiaima arfu‘‘ WNW! 1mm ‘wa. ma mu ' mg? mm; m agmamrgm, sir'awfr mm wk»?m 3w: Wrw Wm 3mm, mfm‘ WI ' u. ’fiazf“ W'a’r’m‘ana s» 91m, mJm‘rmmT mar armr fem wk 2m. ——- —- WWW: swam tr: afmh arrr 19 mum mf—m 311mm mwm . N. L I (PA EL , 5 t ' r i {M3} W(nos‘n)‘)\ “A a) a g gw W ; arm \ 27 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. {s} No. 5163 of 2005 Versus Smt. Unm'la Shrawan Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others Petih'oner Binge BenchaHon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Ayihottl. Shri Amit AgraWal, Advocate for the Petitionen W~ Govt. Shrj V.V.S. Advocate Moorthy, for the Deputy Statc/ respondents. Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, ORDER (31st Octobar, 2005) The petitioner is working as AssistantTeacher in the govemment MP. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.s.R. 136 } the Madhya Hadesh N considering State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, While the citcular dated 1.3.1999 whelein, it is pmvided that the Assistant Teachem, who have acquired B. Ed. degme at their own circular dated 1:3. 1999 cannot be made applicable retmspeciivcly. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, Who has obtained B. Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entitled to two advance increments. 4. It is pointed out by learned counsel appealing for the petitioners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the 'I‘n'bunal and the Hon’ble Supmme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 hled against the order of the Tribunal. Therefoxe, the direction to the edect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B. Ed. examination certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a cilcular dated 17.10.2003 issued by the plesent State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the cimular clearly states about the decision of the Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the facts and question of law involved in the present case are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Cotporan'on, Durg and another (Supra), to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), subject to veritican'on of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired B. Ed. Examination Certihcate on her own expenses as per the circulars dated 24. 12.1998 and 1.3. 1999 and further Whether she has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri / ’ Judge 1 /.. Subhash