^'^;','j- w ^^ili^i c-p ic^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (St No.'T°2-^ /2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ...«-'-*^ fc-^"'^l's't"' ..-^' v-/i^-r ..,„."" ;'t^^-"""" <~-1». A^ 'Ashok*Patel S/o Ganesh Ram Patel Aged about 38 years Asst. Teacher Govt. Primary School Kunjedabari Block Pussore Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS 1. State of Chhattigarh and others Through the Secretary Department of School Education/T.W.D. D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] Commissioner Tribal Welfare ^ - . _ . Department C.G. Govt. Raipur [C.G.] ^3. Asst. Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] ^. Dist. Education Officer Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] <^S5'- Block Education Officer Block ",^T! A^ Pussor Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] •<? WRIT PETITION U/A 226/' ---OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITSAND DIRECTIONS XI-HC-78 3^? •<ii<)]<n<i, arftM'KS, l«i<niulj< HI*1WI ShHlth to;.7ffl^Z Wf^ 200^ 3n^?riRW (^ciijsi^isT) sn^r^Tf^TR? cwsn^rsftiicb ?TtnwHf^(T3n^T l»ii'!iici<n-fHiicii' ffk^s <5viw. ^sri^n'an^r Babh 15.12.2006 t^ for the Petitioners. G^vernment ^dvocate for the Shr-i Sanjay Patel, Advocctt^ Shri 5ushil Oubey, State/r-espondents. With the consent of learfied counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard finally. Common order- dictated in| open Cburt,passecl separately. Writ Petition (5.) 7018/2006 in Sd/- :: Satish K. Agnaintri Judge ^' P.T.O. ,.c- KE6H CCUKT OF CHHATTrSOARH AT BILAyUR W. P. (S) No. 7018 of 2006 Petitioner ; Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Versus Respondents; State of Chhattisgarh &others W. P. (5) No. 7021 of 2006 Petitioner ; Smt. Rejina Toppo Versus Respondents; 5'hate of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (S) No. 7022 of 2006 Petitioner : Arv'md Kumar Patel Versus Respondents: State of Chhatt'isgarh & others W. P. IS) No. 7023 of 2006 Petitioner : Nityanand Patel Versus Responderrts: State of Chhattisgarh iS others W. P. f5) No. 7024 of 2006 Petitioner : Ku. Marry Tigga Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh <& others Petitioner Respondents Petitioner ftespondents Petitioner Respondents W. P. (51 No. 7025 of 2006 Babulal Naik Versus State of Chhatt'isgarh & others W. P. (5) No. 7026 of 2006 Bal Mukund Chcudhary Versus State of Chhattisgarh A o-tiiers W. P. (5)No. 7027 of 2006 Ashok Kumar Patel Versus State of CTihattisgarh & otfiers And W. P. (5) No.7028 of 2006 Petitioner : Aanganlal Chouhan Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & others L^ Sirgle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: 5hri Sanjay Patel, i4dvocate for the Petitioners. 9iri Sjshil bubey, Sovemment Advocate for -the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 15th day of December, 2006) The petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers/Upper Division Teachers in the government schools. In •t+ie course of their services as Assistant Teachers/Upper Division Teachers, the petitioners have obtaiinecf B.Ed./B.T.I. examination certificates on their own expenses before 1.3.1999. 1. 2. 3. Writ Petition (5) No.s 7018/2006, 7021/2006, 7022/2006, 7023/2006. 7024/2006, 7025/2006, 7026/2006, 7027/2006 and 7028/2006 are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and question of law involved in these petitions are common. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitionersare entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Yaitiwant Kumar Bharadwa.i Vs. MuniciDdl CorDoration. Dura tmd another {2006 (TE) MPJR-C6 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhdradwuj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and ano+her (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate on their ovm expenses, are covered by the circular dited 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) issued by +he State ©overnmentof Madhya Pradesh. 4. Further in the mat+er of 5mt. Manorama Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L5.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Swalior Bench, while considering the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided thnt the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B. Ed. degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 ond 7.5.1973 dial! be entitled to two advance increments, relted on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sirivas+ava Vs. State of M.P. A others passed in O.A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it 'is observed that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cxmnot be made dppticable retrospectively. Thus, a teacher, mcy be Assistant Teacher, who hos obtained B. Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entitled to two advance increments. 5. It is pointed out by tearnecf counsef appearing for the petitioners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a Special Leave Petition against the orders pcissed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissecf Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 fited against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direction to the effect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers who have ob'tuined B. Ed./B.T.I. 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 +he decision of -the Supreme Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners fyrther 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 Yoishwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corpora+ion, E5urg and another (Supra), to which learned counsel oppearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees wrtii the averment made by leamed counsel appearing for the OeTitioners. 7. Accordingly, the wit petitions are allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate on ttieir own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and -further whether they hwe been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected matters. Sd/- Satish K.Agniliotri Judge Bablj