^-.-N^^^ v'\! bjf Sfi^. Fof H^!^3f, M , ;i". St^tQ Aam, T^h^a'aSy PAIPU^. ^ -(Sr') CF0060279431' BSF©KB'mE H©N*BL®AE)MINISrmAfI*I¥E TRIBUN&L ^S. RAIPUR C.G. 0<A<,N©._ 720Q1 ^ ^ tc^/-s/'.iLU(°i 1, Stanii Ohandra H&ldar s©n©f» VisMwafflbhar aged 32 years Q©vt* Primary ^eh@©l,Pakhan<3©re, 2, Tikram Slngh Besra s©n©£Lacohhan §ingh Besra, 41 years, Q@vfe«Priinary S>ch©@l, Pakhangeye, 5, Smt.Ind.lraTlaalfit.ly aged 35 years M/@» , Shri Shyamstmflar ffoakur ©©vt.Primary SQh©@l, Pakhan^oa'o 4, Smt.Amita Das W/A. Shri N.G«»Pa3,, Q@vt»Primary SGl3L@@l, Mapharsi, 5, Vijan Bihax*i ndal s@a ©f Chandra Ifendai, 58 years G©vt«Middle SGh©@l, Pakhan<]©r, 6. As]a%©^htejumdar S/@ Iiacla Bhusaa ^ Mazyaidar, aged 58 years G©vt»PrtiBary Sefaeel, Pakh§uij@r<» •< VE^IB 1, /iState ©fGhhattisgarh threugfo The SeGre-bary, Bep-fct.ef E€iaea'bi©n Man-bralaya, ©«K«S,Bh.awanRaipsir. 2»^BiFeot©r, Biepagtmen-b ®fEd.uea'fcjleia, Rai|»ur G.G. ^/ J©intMre©tor, Siducatioa Bistrict K&iaker C.G, 4/ G@lleGt©y,Kanker Bistrict Kaiaker C.G. RB§P@NDEN®8. PSTITION SEQCION 19 M»P*^BXENISTMTIVE TRIBUmL AE81 1985 1 HiefrCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioners W. P. (s) No. 4174 of2005 Sunil Cfaandra HaMar & ofhers Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & othera .-4- Btogile Bendi: HonTale Mr. Justfce Sattehi K. AgpUiotrf. Shri Kishorc Bhaduri, Advocatc for fhc Pctitioncrs. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Govt. Advocate ibr fhe State/respondents. ORDBR (27A October, 2006) Learaed couasel appearing for fhe petitioxiers subniite fhat whtte workuig as Assistant Teacher, fhe petitfoners had gone on tcaioiRg to inaprove their qiialifiications on fheir OWD. expenses and acquired B. Ed. Examination Cerdffcate prior to 1.3.1999. According to learaed counsel for fhe petttioners, ftxe petiti&ners are eiititied to two advaace iacremeiits in view of tfae de^sion of tiiis Court in fhe case of Yashwant Kuiaar Bharadwai Vs» Municipal Corporatibn, Dw& and another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96). This Court ia fhe case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Murdcipal Corporation, Dui^ and anofher (Supra), came to the conclusion tiiat fhe teachers, who had obtamed B. Ed. /B.T.l. Examiaatbn Certificate on fheir own expenses^ are cove^ed by fhe circu]ar dated 24.12.98 (Anncxure P/7) issued by the State Govemiiient of Madhya Pradesh, 3, Furtfaer ia fhe niatter of Sint Manorama Shrivastava Vs, State.of M.P. and otfaers { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 ) tbe Madhya Pmdcsh State AdiQiaistrative Tribun^l, Gwalfor fe?xich, whfle considermg fhe circular dated 1.3,1999 whereiGi, it is provided fhat fhe AssistaDit Teachers, who have acquired B,Ed. degree at fteir owxi cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall bc entitied to two advance incrcments, relied on decisian m fhe case of Rakesh Kumiar Shrivastava Vs. State of M,P. & others passed ia 0<A.No, 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed that the r €) circular dated 1.3,1999 caoiiot be niade appUcabte retrospectivety. Thus, a teacher, lELoy be Assistant Teacher, who has obtamed B.Ed. degree before 1,3,1999 is entifled to two advaxice increinents. It is ^in^ted out by learaed couiisel appearibag for the petitiDners fhat the titien State of Madhya Piadesh had ffled a Special Leave Petition agam.st fhe onlers passed by the Tribuiial and fhe Hon^bte Supreme Comt disinissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 filed agamst fhe order of fhe Tribuiial. Therefore, fhe dircctbn to fhe effect fhat fhe circular dated 1.3,1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively, passed by fhe Tribuiial, becomes final aad the same shall be appUcable to all fhe Assistant Teachera who tiave obtained B.Ed,/B.T,I. examiaatk>n certificate before l.3.1999. It m furfher substaiittated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issuied by fhe prcsent State of Madhya Pradesh whereia fhe circiilar clearfy states about the decision of fhe Suprcme Court, Thakur Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners further submits fhat fhe ifacte aiid question of law involved ia fhe present case are »Q[uarely covered by decision ofthis Court in fhe case of Yashwant Kimiar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal CorpointioD., Durg and axiother (Supr^, to which learaed counsel appearmg for the respondeate feirfy concedcs aad agrees wifh titie avermeot made by teamed coim«el appearing for fhe petltioners. Accordmgfy, fhe writ petition is altowed m terms of fhe onlcr passed iii fhe case of Yashwaat Kuxniar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiucipal Corporation, Dui^ and anofher (Supra^, subject to verifieatk»iof fhe fact as to whether fhe petitioners have acquircd B.Ed./B.T.I. Examioation Certificate on fheir own expeases and further whether fhiey have been paM two advance iiicrcinents or Dot No order as to costs. ^_ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge