1 E § i ‘ k 1 Pet§ oners : s § i l ‘ 0e” I A 1 v ‘ ¢ Q 5‘ wag) w.P. . . wy. . . /2004. / l. shrimti Aar‘hi Shrivastava W/o shri Chandra Shekhar Shrivastava, 41 years, Mficial Address : Tilak Primary School, No. 2, mrg, Teachers Colony, mrg. Residence - Kayasthpara, Ward No. O5, ‘ \wRG (c.G. ). x . . Shrimti Pushpalata 'Iamrakar, \n é) A, $\\ ou W/o shri Mannalal, Aged 62 years, Official Address - Tilak Primary Schobl No.2, Dirg. Residamce - Teacyer's Colony, Dix-g. K r Versu s. 1% State Governmentbi Chbat'a sgarh Through - Secreta‘ry. School Education; Departmaat, Secretariate Bhawan (01d) D.K Hospital, Raipur (c.G ). 2. District School Officer, mrg (C.G. ). / :Mrit peti‘u.on under Art. 226/ :E India. O FGRE THE HGWBLE EIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE A'I‘ BIIA§UR (C. G.) \ix W V -¢V{}/“ Reépandents ‘ {g 0 Y ;\PQQ‘ / @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR £ i W. P. No. 2148 of 2004 \ hrimati Aarti Shrivastava & anothe S r \ Versus State of Chhattisgarh 8r. another Single Bench Hon‘ble Mr Jusucc Satish K. Apihotri ? ISS s i 531- Agay Shnvastava, Advocate for the Pehtloner M Deepah Pandey, Panel lawyer for the State] respondents O R D E R (16th November, 2006) penhoners are workmg as Assnstant Teachers m the ovemment schools In the course of their serv1ce as Ass1stant acher the petmoners have obtamed B Ed [BTI exammatxon ertlflcate on then" own expenses on 29 6 1991 } vq.w § OH ”e“w i 2. Acoordmg to learned counsel for the peutioners, the pentxoner; axemntltled to two advance momments 5m mew of the declsmn ojf i 1‘ ~ V th1s Court m the case of Yashwant! Kumar Bhal‘adWa} Vsf Mummpal Coxporahon, Durg and another {2006 (II) MPJR CG 96} f i Thls Court m the ease of YashwaIJ Knmar Bharadwaj Vs § Mumc1pal Cmpomtlon, Durg and another (Supra), came to the conclusmn that the teachers, who had} obtained B Ed [BTI’ Exammahon Certlticate on thelr own ex enses, are covered by the cucular dated 24 12 98 (Annexule P/ 7) Issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. O r 3. Further in the matter of Smt. Manorama Shrivastava Vs. State of MR. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.s.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh’ l State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, while consideriné J the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired l3.Ed. degree at their owrli c 3 s meg) dst between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.197 hall be eetitled to advance increments, relied on decisio n the case of Rake n. i sh nmar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. thers passed in O.A.N L L § w é K &. o o. l /2/‘ ‘ v y 1632[99 dealded on 12 10 1999 whemm 1t 1s observed that the cucular dated 1 3 1999 cannot be made appllcable mtmspechvcly Thus, a teacher may be Assmtant Teacher who has obtamed i B Ed degree before 1 3 1999 ls enhtled to two advance ‘mrements ,y ,< o §It E 1s pomted out by leamed counsel appeanng for the peutloners i z Supreme Court dlsnnssed Speclal Leave Petmon No 1999/2000 L tiled agamst the Older of the ’I‘nbuna]. Themfore the dnecmm to the eh‘ect that the cu‘cuJar dated 1 3 1999 cannot be made aphhcable Ietmspecttvely, passed by the Tribunal becomes haab and the same shall be apphcable to all the Ass1stant Teachers who have obtamed B Ed [B TI 1 3" 1999 exammatlon cerhficate r before \ It ls further substantjated by a cucular dated 17 ‘10 2003 Issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh whereln the cucular clearly states about the dec1s1on of the Supreme Court t x > > v Leafn ‘co‘unsel for the petitioners further subtmts that the facts and queshon of law Involved 1n the present case axe squarely covered by dectslon of tlns Court m the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs Mumc1pa1 Corporahon Durg and another (Supra) ‘to whlch learned counsel appeanng for the respondents fan'ly V concedes and aglees Wlth the averment made by learned counsel appeanng for the pehhonexs x ‘Accordmgly the wnt pehuon ls allowed 1n terms of the order‘ ‘ passed 1n the case of Yashwant Kumar BharadwaJ Vs Mumelpal‘ Corporahon Burg and another (Supra), ubJect to venhcahon of y the fact as to Whether the pehtloners have acqulred B Ed [B T I Exammahon Cerhhcate on their own expenses as per the cucnlars pald dated two 24 advance 12 1998 mcmments an 1 3 1999 or and not methamer No o er as to they cost have L becni that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had tiled a Spec1al Leave :3 Pehtlon agamst the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble E » s '