^-iwl^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S) N0. ^£9^ / 2006 Petitioner : Shyam Kartik Gupta,^" ...'• . S/o. Shri Shrichand Gupta, / ..•• -.-.-....-....-..-..-— r--, ,\'^<'_...-'' ...••' Aged about 42 years, Asst.Teacher, \SJ'* ,•* ij^*'s\ ..*** ^[.--'{y\^ Govt- Higher Secondary School, ^ Pali, Tahsil & Block Pali, •^y s»-" <.^•' ,<f' Distt. - Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents ?»?' rS^ 09^ ^&^ \^^ ^.G"' ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ^ Through- The Secretary, Department of School Education/ T.W.D., D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, ^ Tribal Welfare Department Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Asstt. Commissioner f/ Tribal Welfare Department, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT, WRITS. DIRECTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. 5^a-i ^pvuf' UU.S ai SiNQLE BENCH : HON'Bl-E iViR. SATISH K. AQNIHOTR'. J. ^-^^^» ^fc jMy.ssyy. y> Shyam Kartik Gupta ResRondents 'srsus State of Chhafiisgarh and others PETiTIONlS,] ResBondejits Versus Muntazim Ah.mad Slddique State of Chhaf+isgarh and ot'ners ;T'Tini i i J^>B;J OF 201 Petitionsr Padum Kumar Sahu versus Stats of Chhattisgarh and.others P'esent : Mr. A.S. Rajput, counsei for the petitloners.in a!i the petitions. Mr. Utkarsh Verrna, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State in ail the pstitions. nencB '^u/t'^^f^.T^ (Passed on 26"' of October, 2006) •;H .>*•- The petitioners are wo-rking as Assistant TeachejS in Government Schoois. Sn ths course of their sewice as Asslstant eacher, the petitioners havs obtained B.Ed p R ^rt f^^rj'ifjr'ffifa -st ^h?al3 Ayr^jsn^A?s h^frirffi 1°3~1QP< •^r/^^J'WTJ 1-h?'^?^ ht'^^;-T^t<»; 3—^^—I l^'V^lh^a "rit OB+iti""s /fi \ Mn 'SROCa nf •7nnc; c.fiQR of 7nf)S; anrt 'Vi il i—'S?UU\^ii^? \^ •} ^^. ^vw ys -^u'yo, -tjoso us' .iii.'Lr'UO <SlS SU 5694 of 2006 are being dlsposed of by this common order as the facts snd questlon of !aw involved in these petitions are common. .3. According to isarned counse! for the pstitionsrs, the pstitloners are entitlsd to two advance Incremsnts in visw of the decisiOR of this Court in the case o^ Yashwant Kumar Bharacswaj vs. Misnicipal Coi'poration, Durg a/wano'ther , wheresn it has been heid that the Tsachsrs, havlng obtained B.Ed., M.Ed., B.T.!. Certificates, at their own expsnses, are covered by the cireuiar dated 24-12-1998 issued by the State Govsrnrnent of Madhya Pradssh. 4. Further.in the matter of Smt Manorama Shmastava vs. State of M.P. and otkers'', the Madhya Pradssh Administrative Tribunal, Gwaiior Bench, whils considsring the clreular datsd 1-3-1999, wherein it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. Degres at their own cost betwsen 23-10-1964 ana 7-5-1973 shaii be entitied to two advance increments, reiled on decision in ths case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and oftera passsd in Orif3i^?!il AnnSl^^tirsr; Nn 1^3? nf '1<?C^P d'^f.ld^s4 f^n 17-10-1 QQ9 whsrsir' i idi .^li^W 1 S ^/•Si L-i ^a? < 3 i ^k^. i Uiur^i i>>/i ^ ^i'w>'w?. SA^^rft't^1?;^ Ui i i .£.•" i <-/"" i •^€^^:'B yV i 3%?!! <3ii i it is obsswed that ths clrcuiar dated 1-3-1999 cannot be made appiicable retrospecSively. Thus, a Teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, v,'ho has obtained B.Ed. Degree before 1-3-1999 is entitSed to fevo advance incrsments. 5. it is pointed out by Isarnaci counsel appearing for the petitionsrs .that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had flisd a Special Leave Petltlon against the orders passed by the Tribuna! and "m Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Lea.ve Petition No.1999 of 2000 filed asainst the ordsr of ths Tribunal. Thersfore, the direction to the effect that the cireuiar dated 1-3-1999 cannot be mads applicabie 'etrospectlvely, passed by the Tribunal, becomes SnaS and the same shal! be appiicabie to ali the Assistant Teachers, who have obtained S.Ed./B.T.i. Csrtificates before 1-3-1999. it is further substantiated by a circuiar dated 17-10-2003 issued by the present State of hiladhya Pradesh, wherein the .circuiar cleariy states about the cecision of ths Hon'bie Suprsme Couri. Learned counsel for the petitionere further submits thai the fscts and qyestion of law involved in ths presenf cases are squareiy covered by the dscision of this Court in ths case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadivaj (Supra), to which !@arned counsel appearing for the respondsnts/State fairiy concedss and agrees 'A'ith the avermsnts ms.de by learned counse! appearing for the petitionsrs. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allov/sd in terms of the decislon of this Court In the rnatter of Yashwant Kumar Bharad-waj (Supi'a), subject to verification of ths fact as to whsther t'ns petitioners have acquired B.Ed. Certificats at their own expenses as psr the cjreutars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3-1999 and further whether t'ney have bsen patd tv/o advance JRcrsmsnts or not. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be ptaced on the record of the connected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 2000 f11 M.P.L.S.R. 133 Gopai