i-W' :^..^ Wl ^:^^'-^";' ^ C'p lo-o ^•fi M^'Bsnbte ffieh Court of Chhattishearh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P. (S) No. e/^ 2006 Petitioner Respondent Rohit Kumar Chandrakar aged 58 years ^- S/0 Sbri Jeturam Chandrakar., Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primery School ,Nahanda Durg Tahsil & District,Durg. VERSUS 1. The State Government ofChhattishgarh,<; Through the Secretary, Education Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Block Education Officer,/•' Durg (C.G) Writ petition under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issyance pf writ in tbe niiture of MANDAMUS, Certiorari, Prohibition and other suitable WRIT or writs, Order or orders, Direction or directions. The petitioner, aboye named, furnishes the particulars of the writ petition as under :- • _ Q ^-? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR c—v Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondcnts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W, P. (sLNp. 6105 of2006 Prem Sukh Sahu Versus State Govt. ofChhattisgarh & another W. P. (s) No. 6106 of2006 Petitioner : Rohit Kumar Chandrakar Versus Respondents : State Govt. ofChhattisgarh & others W^P. (sLNo, 6107 of 2006 Smt. DiptiTiwari Versus State Govt. ofCUhattisgarh & ofhers W. P. !s) No. 6109 of2006 Petitioner ; Ramesh Kuinar Hirwani Versus Respondents : State Govt. ofChhattfsgarh &, others W^P^tsLNo, 61K) of 2006 Sanjay Kumar Singh Vcrsus State Govt. ofCbhattisgarh & ofhers W. P. fs) No. 6119 of2006 Babulal Dcshmukh Vcrsus State Govt. ofChhattisgarh & ofhers And W. P. fsl No. 6120 of 2006 Petitioner : Dwarika Prasad Dewangan Vcrsus Respondents ; State Govt. ofChhattisgarh & ofhers Singile Bencli: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnttotrl. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the Petitioners. Smt. AnjuAhuja, Dy. Govt Advocate forfhe State/respondents. "\! 0K D E R (R1S1 Novemher, 2006) The petifioners are working as Assistant Teachers/Lecturers in the govenunent schools. In fhe course of their servfces as Assistant Teachera/Lecturers, they have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. exam.ination certfficates on their own expenses before l .3.1999. Writ Petition {s) No.s 6105/2006, 6106/2006, 6107/2006r 6109/2006, 6110/2006, 6119/2006 and 6120/2006 are being disposed ofby this conunon oideras the facts and question oflaw iavolved in fhese petitions are coinmon. Jtecording to leamed counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entifled to two advance increments in view ofthe decision of fhis Court Hl the case of Yashwant Kuinar Bharadwai Vs. Mumciual CorDoratioa. Dure and another{2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dwcg and anofher (Supra), came to fhe coHclusion that fhe teacheis, who had obteined B. Ed. /B.T.I. Exainmation Certiffcate on fheir own expcnses, are covered by the circular dated 24.12.98 (AnHexure P/l) issued by the State Goveminent ofMadbya Pradesh. Further in fhe inatter ofSint. Manoraina Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and ofhers { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh Stete Adinuustrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, whfle considering the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherem, it is piovided that the Assistaat Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. degree at their own cost betiveen 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall be entitled to two advance increinents, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shriwastava Vs. State of M.P. & others passed in O.A.No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed that fhe cirGular dated 1.3.1999 caanot be made applfeable retrospectively. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtamed B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entitled to two advance inciwnents. -^— ^; 6. It is pointed out by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal'and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Ptetition No. 1999/2000 ffled against tlie order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direcyon to the efifect that fhe cuicular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made appUcable retrospectwely, passed by the Tribunal, becoines final and the same shaU be applicable to all the Assistaat Teachers who have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificates before 1.3.1999. It is fui-fher substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issucd by the present State of Madhya Pradcsh wherein the circular clearly states aboiit fhe decision of the Suprcme C-ourt. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners further subinits that fhe facts and question of law involved in the present case are squarety covered bv decision offliis Court in the case of Yashwant Kuinar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg aad anotfaer (Supra), to which leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the avennent niade by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accoriingly, these writ petitions are aUowed in tenas of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kuinar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anofher (Supra), subject to verification of fhe fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I. Examinatioa Certificates on their own expenses as per fhe circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whether fhcy have been paid two advance increinents or not. No order as to costs. Bablu 8. A copy ofthis order be placed on record ofconnected inatters. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge