éo?$/oé “WWW/W smgm gal I dated...:€n.:.\..\...~..$5:.................... / Q m m5 Ema mum- aF gHHéTrgseARs-i AT BILAspuR wRH PETE-rig»: (s) NQ, €933 1 2995 PgT;TIQ§ER; Smt Usha Chikhalikar, I” W/o Shri Bharat Chikhalikar, Aged about 51 yearsi Post— Teacher, R/o Prateek Bhavan, CivH Line Laibagh, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSU§ amiwgms: 1: State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secreta ry, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, (C,G,) 2. The District Education Officer Jagdalpur, District Bastar,(C.G.) &ET PETITIQN UNDER AETICLE 226lzg7 QF THE gghlSTiTQTIQN QF INDIA. R W HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR Patitioner ReSpondents W. P. (s) No. 6038 of 2006 Smt, Usha Chikhalikar V€rsus State of Chlmttisgarh & anathar Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justica Satish K. mihotri. Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocatf. for the P5fitionsr. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Govt. Advocate for the Stato! respondents. O R D E R (7th Novemher, 2006} The petitioner is working as Upper Division Teacher in the government school. In the course of his service as Upper Division Teacher, the petitioner has obtained B. Ed. examination certificate on his own expenses before 1.3. 1§99 on 26. 1. i980 Accoirling to learned eounsei for the yetitioner, the imtitioner is entitled to two advance increments in View of the decision of this Court in the case of Yaehwant Kulnar Bharaclwaj Vs. Municipal ‘Comoration, Dnrg and another §2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Comoration, Durg and another (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed. /B.T.i. Examination Certificate on their own expenses, are-covered by the circular dated 24. 12.98 (Annexure P] 1) issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Further in the. matter of Slnt. Manoraina Shrivastava Vs. State of MP. and. others { 2000 {1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative ’l‘nbnnal, Gwalior Bench, whiie considering the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall be entitled to two advance increments, relied on. decision in the case of Rakesh Kuniar Shrivastava Vs. State of MP. 8r, others passed in O.A.No. 1632/g9, decided on 12.10.1g99 wherein it is obsmved that the Circular datad, 1.3. 1999 cannot be made apylicabla retmspectively. Thus, a teacher, may ba Assistant Thacher, who has obtamed B.Ed. degrae befom 1.3.1999 is entitled to two advance increments. It is painted out by learned counsel appearmg for the petitioner that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had flied a Special Leave Petition agaihst the otdere passed by the Tribunal and the Hen’ble Sumeme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/ 2000 filed against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direction to the. effect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retmspectively, passed by the Tn‘bunal, becomes fmal and the same shall he applicable to all the Assistant Teachers wh have obtained B.Ed.[B.T.l. examination. certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the circular clearly states about the decision of the Supreme Court. Learned. counsel for the petitioaer further submits that the facts and question of law involved in the present case are squarely covered by decision of this Court. in the case of Yashwant Kuniar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg and another (snnraf, to which leanied counsel appearing for the iespondents fairly concedes and agrees with the avernient made by learned counsel apnearing for the petitioner. Bablu Accordingly, the writ petition. is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg and another (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to Whether the petitioner has acquired B. Ed. Examination Cerh'ticate 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. Sdl- 1 Satish K.Agnihotri Judge o ‘~