IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -R WRIT PETITION N0. ....!...i'..f.'^...OF 2005 PETITIONERS ^M^ vW^' WP ''yy^ Vishnu Lal Bhensle, S/o Shri Makhan Lal , aged about 42 years, occupation Assistant Teacher, posted at Govt.High School Kuangondi, District Durg (CG). / 2. Kanhaiya Lal Vishwak&rma S/o Late Shri Kachharu Ram, aged about 40 years, occupation Assistant Teacher,Government Primary School, Magardah,District Durg (CG). , 3. Kashi Ram Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram, aged about 50 years, occupation Assistant Teacher, posted at Primary School Pattechuwa. ,. 4. Harish Sahu S/o Sauk Lal Sahu, aged about 40 years, occupation Lecturer, Govt.Boys Higher Secondary School, Charama . 5. Ram Kumar Sahu, S/o Rishi Ram Sahu, aged about 43 years, occupation Assistant Teacher, posted at Government Higher Secondary School Anthagarh. VERSUS RBSPONDENTS -- .-. rP' ^y^ ^ x^c^ ^.^" '^01 01. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG). ^ 02. The Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Buildmg, Raipur (CG). -: 03. The Director, Public Instructioris, Raipur (CG). 04. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (CG). ^ 05. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Durg (CG). ., 06. District Education Officer, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG). 07. Principal,Govt.Higher Secondary School, Antagarh District Kanker. '^ -^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. a>' HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SIN6LEBENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petitioners WRIT PETITION N0.1448 OF 2005 Vishnu Lal Bhenste and others versus Respondents : Stete of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mrs. Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the Stete/ respondents. (Passed on 10m of November, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners submtts that petitioner No.3 be permitted to withdraw his petition wth liberty to file a fresh petition as he is claiming relief of grant of two advance increments not on the basis of B.Ed./B.T.I. Certificates but on tiie basis of D.Ed. Certificate. Learned counsel for the petitjoners further submite that the other petitioners are claiming the relief of grant of two advanee increments on the basis of B.Ed. Certificate. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition, so far as it relates to petitioner No.3, stands dismissed as withdrawn witi the above-stated liberiy. No order as to costs. 3. Petitioners No.1. 2, 4 and 5 are worl^ng as Lecturer/Assistant Teacher in Government Schools. tn the course <rf their service as Lecturer/Assistant Teacher. they have obteined B.Ed. Certificate at theirown expenses before 1-3-1^9. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners No.1, 2. 4 and 5 are entiUed to two adwance incremente in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwsnt Kwnser Bharaefwaj vs. MunicipQl Corporatimi, Dufg andanottief9, wherein it has been hetd that the teachers. having obtained B.Ed.. M.Ed., B.T.I. Certificates, at their own expenses, are covered by the ciroutar dated 24-12-1998 issued by the State Govemment of Madhya Pradesh. 5. Further, in the matter of Smt. Manorema Shriwastava vs. State ofM.P. and ^he/s2, the Madhya Pradesh AdministraSv®Tribunal, Gwalior Bench. white considering thecircutar elated 1-3-1999, wherein it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acqyired B.Ed. Degree at their own oost between 23-10-1964 and 7-5-1973 shall be entttled to two advance incremente, relied on deci^on in ttie case of Rakesh Kumar Shnvastava vs. State of M.P. anct ofher.s passed in Originat Application No.1632 of 1999, decided on 12-10-1999, wherein it is observed that ttie circular dated 1-3-1999 cannot be made applicable retrospeGtively. Thus, a Teacher, may be ^sistantTeacher, who has obtained B.Ed. Degree before 1-3-1^9 is en®edto two advance increments. 6. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for ttie petitioners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had fited a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal and frie Hon'bte Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No.1999 c^ 2000 fited against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, ttie direction to IWUIUNWI". the effect that the circular dated 1-3-1999 cannot be made applicabte retrospectivety, passed by the Trtounal, becomes final and the same shall be applicabte to all the Assistant Teachers, who have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. CertHicates before 1-3-1999. It is further siAstanUateGl by a circular dated 17-10-2003 issued by the present State of M^lhya Pradesh, wherein the circular cteariy states about the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitionera furttier submits that the facte and quesfion of law involved in the present cs^e of petifioners No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are squarely covered by the decision of thisCourt in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadhwaj (Supra), to which (earned counsel appearing for the respondente/State fairly concedes and agrees wlth the averments made by teamed cwnsel appearing for the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, so far as it relates to petitioners No.1. 2, 4 and 5, is allowed in terms of the decision of this Court In the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bhavadwaj (Supra). subject to verifieation of the fact as to whether petitioners No.1, 2, 4 and S have acquired B.Ed. Certiflcate at their own expenses as per the drculars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3-19^ and Turther whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. sd/- . _ SatishK.Agnibotrl Judge Gopal 1 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 2 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136