•XV s3'' ^^ (2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)NO; 83 /2006 PETITIONER Virendra Kumar Dubey S/o Shri K. N. Dubey, ^^Age about 41 years, Lecturer, < ?^5^TB^r.yeu^l"e ;a^.l-'""^.?7"'""..-3:'""'' Govt BT-'-' Dongargarh, R/o -Lal Bag, y'":. ..•1''>1'0^''"- i-"'."d®<s"l"ig.^-uy Distt.-Rajnandgaon(C.G.) ^^^"" ^ ^ RESPONDENTS .0^ ..^^ VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh ^ Through: Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer ^ Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CQNSTITUnON OFJNDIA Petitioner most humbly submit as under:- ^ 1. IIIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P-Jis}_No^5831of^OQ6 Ptetitioner : Viiendra Kumar Dubey Vcrsus Respondents : State of Chtaattisgarh & aaofher Sin^e Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. AgnUiotri. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the Pctttioner. Shri Utkarsh Venna, Govt. Advocate for fhe State/respondents. ORDER . (30AOctober, 2006) The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in fhe govenunent schooL In the course of his service as Assistant Teacher, fhe petitioner has obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. examinatiDn certificate on his own cxpenses before 1.3.1999. 2. Accordiug to teamcd counscl for fhe petitioncr, fhe petitioner is eatitled to two advaric& increiaents in view of the decision of fhis Court in thc case of Yashwant Kuinar Bhaiadwai Vs. Muiucipal Ctorporation, Dm^ and anothcr {2006 pl) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in fhe case of Yashwant Kiunar Bharadwaj Vs. Miuucipal Corporation, Durg and anothcr (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed. /B.T.I. Exanunation Certijficate on fheir own cxpcnses, are CQvered by the ciicular dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) fasued by fhe State Govenunent of Madhya Pradesh. 3, Further in the inatter of Smt, Manorama Shnv^t^?a Vs.^State of M.P. and others {2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Admiiusteatwe Tribunal, Gwalior Bcnch, while consideriixg the circtdar dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that fhe Assistent Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. degrec at fheir own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shaU be entitted to two advance incremcnts, relied on decisiou in fhe case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & others passed in O.A.NO. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is obseryed that fhe n cucular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistaat Teacher, who has obtained B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entiflcd to two advancc incremcnts. It is pointed out by leamed coiinsel appearing for the petitioner fhat fhe then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed aSpecial Leave Petition against fhc orders ^»ssedby the Tribunal and fhe Hon'bte Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 filed against the orier of the Tribunal. Therefore, fhe direction to fhe effect fhat the ciroular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made appBcable retrospcctivety, p^sed by the Tribunal,,becomes final and fhe same shaU be appUcable to aU the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. examuiation certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 jssued by the present State of Madhya Pradcsh wherein fhc circular clearly states about the decMion of fhe Supreme Courfc lakiir Leamed counsel for the petitioncr further subinits fhat ftie facts aud question of law involved iu fhe present case are sqziarety cxwered by decision oftfais Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhacadwaj Vs. Muiiicipal Corporatfon, Duig and anofher (Supra), to which feamed counsel appearmg for the respondents fairly concedes aad affses with the avennent inade by leamed cott&sel appearir^ for fhe pctitioncr. Accoriingty, thc writ petition is aUowed in terms of fhe order passcd ia the case of Yashwant Kuniar Bharadwaj Vs. Muaicipal Corporation, Duig and another (SupK^, subject to verification of the fa.et as to whetfaer fhe petitioner has acqiiired B. Ed./B.T.I. Examiuatfon Certificate on his own expenses as per fhe cnculars dated 24.12.1998 1.3.1999 and further whether he has bcen paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- , ., SatishK.A8"ibotrl Judge