(2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.<s912A /2006 PETITiONER "h ^ •pt1 RESPONDENTS ^o Pranab Banerjee D/o Shri Amal Krishna Banerjee Ageabout41 years, Lecturer, Govt. Girls Kanya Siksha Parisar, Parchanpal, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Ravishankar University Complex Raipur(C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Jagdalpur Collector - Jagdalpur (C.G.) Principal Govt. Girls Kanya Siksha Parisar Parchanpal, Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA /^..-r^ ^^y^- ^.-••"j^;-" ....-••" ^'tr i^--' --.;"' ^ f )"eL :'.^^ 4. HI6H COURT OFCHHATTCSeARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 6986 of 2006 Petitioner : Pronab Banerjee Versus i-s: State <5ovt. of Chhattisqarh And W. P. (5)No. 6987 of 2006 Petitioner : Ku. Anjona &as Versus Respondents; State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh & cuiother Single Sench; Hon'ble M,r. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. ^rss resent: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the Peti+ioner(s). Advocate for the p, uepu <. f, OR&ER (Passed on 15th day of &ecember, 2006) 1. The petitioners are working as Lscturers/Upper Division Teachers in the government schoois. In the course of their services as Lecturers/Upper Division Teachers, the petitioners have obtained B.Ed. examination certificates on their own expenses before 1.3.1999. 2. Writ Petition (5) No.s 6986/2006 and 6987/2006 are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and question of law involved in 1+iese petitions are common. 3. According to iearned counset for the petitioners, fne petitioners are entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwa.i Vs. Municioa! CorDoration. bura and another {2006 CEI) MPJR-CfS 96}. This Court in •t+ie case of Viashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Sjpra), 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 circuiar dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) issued by the State ©overnmentof Madhya Pradesh. 4. Further in the matter of Smt. Mcmorama Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.5.R. 136 } -ttie Madhya Prodesh State Administrative Tribunal, Swntior Bench, while considering the circuiar dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistont Teachers, who have acquired B. Ed. degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shatl be entitled to two advance increments, reiied on decision in -Hie case of Rakesh Kumnr Sirivastava Vs. State of M.P. & otiiers possed in O.A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein It is observed tiiat the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made appiicoible retroqiectively. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B. Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is en+itled to two advance increments. 5. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the then State of AAadhya Pradesh had filed a Specia! Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal ond the Hon'bte Supreme Court dismissed Specia! Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 filed against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direction to the effect that the circuiar dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively, passed by 1+ie Tribunat, becomes finoil and the same shall be appiicable to al! the Assistant Teachers viAio have obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. examination cartificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a circuiar dated 1.7.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradefih wherein the cir-cutar cleariy states about the decision of the Sjpreme Court. 6. Learned counset for the petitioners further submits that the facts and question of taw involved in the present case are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwnj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg ond another (Sipra), to which learned counset oppewmg for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by learned counsef appearing for 1+ie petitjoners. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the order passed 'm +he case of Yashtuant Kumar Bharadwwj Vs. Municipat Corporation, Dupg and another (&pra), subject to verification of the fact as to whel+ier the petitioners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I. Examinatiori Certificate on their own expenses as per the circutars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and fur+her whether 1+iey have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be p'aced on record in connected matters. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sabhssh