BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUMC G ) mp. . . . . . é) Jawg ’ s RamgPrg-udaswuv s/o Shri 5ar3u‘Prasad Sahu, aged 45 yuan, Permnent resident: of vina'ge msabhat, P.0.v Nikum, Matt Dum (enhattugarh). t‘g’tA/ssugnt Teacher. Primary Sghool / . W7 Khuraul, Black ‘Gund'erdehi. Matt. wVRG (chmttisgarh). PETI‘BIGN‘ER K" “J ,ég‘w 0‘ ' l’gwsa, ’n' y\\¢a\‘ 1. Secretary. Department me: Saheel. Edueation, Government at chmttisgarh / Di Kn So Emmy “EUR. 2. District Educattcn‘ 0£££eer. RESPGNBMTS : 3. Block Education Officer. GWDERDEHI. Writ petitmn tamer Arisicle 226/227 or thvcggituticn at India. r . g .:_.a. 2iL C §§EEiEi ) HIG!L QK1EV§T “53G} 1 f? ’ QQ:,Q£LEI£\ ‘F‘R r .V1}{Q-7_C)f._2,9.Q§ WV.B;_M.1.m6w Petitionm‘ : Pisad Sahu Versu Respondents : Secmtary, Department of School Educau’on and othcrs ’ Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. mihohi, Sn‘ Ajay Shrivasfava, Advocate for thc Petitioner. h Miss Decpali Pandey, Panel lawyer for the State] respondts. ( 29m Noveer, 2006) 1. learned counsel for the petitionr submits that th petitn‘ner hma tile an h‘vit dated 27.1.2006, étatjng hat the petin‘one is not messing any other relief, except he giant o two advance nrements and for other relief the petitioner may be granted liberty to f1le fresh petition. Thus, i this petition only the isue, asto whether the petitioner is entitled to th rant of two dvance inCIements, is being considered. The petitioner is work as Assistant Teache in. the government primaxy school, Khursul, bbck’Gunderdehi, district Durg. Sinc the date of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher i.e. 12.7.1986, the petitioner was having qualihcah'on of B.Ed. examination certiticate, which he has aoquixed on his own expenses. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to two advance inotements in view of the decisiOn of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal \Ram ra s en 0 R D E R mh e e d atia 1 t r t f ic ‘r n s e g a ing rs e Cotporation, Durg and anotha {2006 (I!) MPJR-CG 96}; This Court in the case of Yashwant Knmar Bhamdwaj Vs. Municipal Corporatinn, Durg and another (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachcm, who had obtained B. Ed. /B.T.l. Examination Certificate on their own expenses, are covered by the circular dated 24. 12.98 (Annexme P/7) issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Further in the matter of Smt. Manorama shllmunm Vs. t we of My. and othets { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tlibnnal, Gwalior Bench, Whik considen'ng the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachets, who have acquixed B.Ed. degtee at their own cost between 23. 10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall be enh'tled to two advance incxements, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh' Kumat Shrivasuwa Vs. State of ALP. & other: passed in O.A.No. 1632/99, decided on 12. 10. 1999 Whetein it is observed that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable Iehospectively. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B.Ed. degtee befote 1.3.1999 is entitled to two advance inciements. lt is pointed out by learned counsel appean’ng for the petitioner that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had tiled a Special Leave Petition against the oniers passed by the Tn'bunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 tiled against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the dixection to the ed'ect that the circular dated 1.3. 1999 cannot be made applicable retmspectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B.Ed./B.T.l. examination celulicatc befom 1.3.1999. It is further §ubstantiatgd by a cim'ular datcd 17.10.2003 issued by the pmsent State of Madhya Pxadesh wherein the circular elcarly states about the decision of the Supreme Court. 6. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the facts and question of law involved in the present case axe squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashmt Km Bharadwqi Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dutg and another (Supra), to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by karued counsel appealing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yuhmult Kamarrnhandwnj Vs. Municipal Corporation, wrg and another (Supra), subject to ven'Eeation of the fact as to Whether the petitioner has acquired B. Ed. E;amjnahon Certiflcate on his own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 &. 1.3.1999 and further whether he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. / // ./ ’ sel— _ _ Satish K. Agmmui/ Judge ‘ ,/ A / , Thakur