-.V •i£^JTigEj£B~Mli'Ti^£ii~'6pID]Tip^'STiS^Ilg •V^^^!^.-^'Slj^^S^.^ (^ ^yfe<» ^,^ I'-l.N ^iait-- It^ • —-o— •'• -;^^^y- 'JM^ISj. fe3M^l§ Jz^J.lfi ^l&lif |£J •lc*fl| ^lgjl- 1 J. ^J.^hj.ie iJ^v-itjiiy. |2| ^ S 'i£•fl! ^Sizu *i-bte •B&^*^ <LJieX|. ^J.l&Kfe Vj.lb bbj.lie *te^M^ : UAI <bMll£ ^l(fi4IM£ ^ AM •i£•flj fepteigtt -- Jifcijfy. 'j.bas- ^f^i'sfej. 'iSJieJLyQMj. <lVJife*bll? *!^iV. !bi2l§B *^ £^!dyje^ isteiJlie ^ OS Bll£ 'V^b !:.^^14,lt ' •< BSiS^Iblc 1@^Tfe 500^ : tlte§ •A^]£ ^o]^y}^T^d^ ']T€~I£Ml~7S^~i^TMi^Ji~i^lM-^iri4^^-I^ ceo ^- ? ^- ^ ^! »^^»^.^r^*,%^^^^,wu.:» ^,^ww-w^.&^it Q Cs 1 HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitiouer Respondents W. P. fsl No. 4811 of2005 Versus Kishore Kumar Shanna i State of Chhattisgarh and ofhiers And W. P. ls\ No. 4921 of2005 Petitioner : Mohaci Lal Patel Versus Respondents : State ofChhattisgarh and ofhera SIn^e Bench: Honlsle Mr. Justrce Satteli K. AgnUiOitri. Shri S.K. Thomas, Advocate for fhc Pctitioncrs. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General vyifh. Smt Anju Ahuja, Deputy GovL Advocate for fhe State/respondents. ORDER (318t0ctober,2006) 1. The petitioners are workir^ as Upper Division Teachers/ AsMstant Teachers m the goverament schools. In fhe course of fheir services as Upper Divisiou Teachers/ Assistaat Teachers, titie petitioners have obtaiaed B. Ed./B.T.I exammatfon certificates on ftieir own expenses before 1.3. 1999. 2. The petidoners have acqmred B.Ed</B.T.I. qualifications beforc 1.3.1999 in the year 1979 and 1992 rcspectivefy. The petitionere were mitiaUy graated two advance increnienfs but fhe saxiie was withdrawn by oiders dated 15.01.2002 and 18.02.2002 (Aimexure A-l) respectively, ?9 ^ Writ Petition (S) No.s 4811/2005 and 4921/2005 arc being disposcd ofb^ thte common ;brder as the facts and question of law involved m ftiese petitions are coxiimon. Accordiag to leanied counsel for the petittonera, the petitioners are entiffed to two advance iacrements ia view oflthe decisdon of this Coiut in the case of Yashwault Kumar Bharadwai Vs. Municqial Corpomtion. Dura and another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in fbe case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiucipal Corporation, Durg and aaother (Supra), came to the conclusion tihat fhe teachers, who had obtaiaed B. Ed. Examination Certificate on their own expenses, are covered by the circiilar dated 24.12.98 issued by the State Govemmeat of Madhya Pradesh, Further in fhe miatter of Smt. Manorama Shrivastava Vs» State of M.P. and othere { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Admuustrative Tnbuual, GwaUor Bench, while considering fhe circular dated 1.3.1999 whercin, it is provided fhat fhe Assistaat Teachera, who have acquired B. Ed. degrce at tiieir own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shafl be entitled to two advance increments, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & ofbers passed in O.A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 whercin it is observed fhat the ^circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectivety. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B. Eki. degrec before 1.3.1999 is entiflcd to two advance mcrements. 6. It is pointed out by learaed counsel appearing for the petitionera that the thcn State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a Special Leave Ptetition agamst the onlere passed by the Tnbunal and fhe Hon'ble Supremc Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 filed against fhe oider of fhe TribunaL Therefbre, fhe directiou to ftie eflfect that the circular dated 1.3,1999 <3annot be made appUcable retrospectively, passed by fhe Tribunal, becomes final and fhe same shaU be appUcable to aU fhe Asaistant Teachers who have obtaiaed B. Ed. exammatun certfficate befiore 1.3.1999. It is further substaadated by a circular dated 17.10.20d3 issucdS^ fhe prcsent State of Madhya Pradesh wherein fhe circular clearty states about the decision offhe Supreme Court 8. Leamed counsel for fhe petitionera furfher submits fhat fhe facts an<| questk>n of law iavolved in fhe present case are squarety covered by decision of this Court in fhe case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Muxucipal Corporatk>n, Durg and anofher (Suprs^, to which feained counsel appeanng for fhe respondents fairty concedes and agrces wifh the averment made by learaed couiisel appearing for the pettfaonera. Accordmgly, fbe writ petitions arc allowed in terms of the onler passed ia fhe case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anofher (Supra), subject to verificataon of the fact as to whefh.er the petitioners have acquired B. Ed. Exaniination Certi&cate on their own expenses as per fhe circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and furtfacr wfaether they^iave been paid two advaace increments or not No order as to eosts. Subha<ah A copy offhis order be placed on record m connected mattera. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge