^-- W TUE KtGH COUKT OF CUUATFISGARU AT BILASPUR OF2009_ C^'CO Conteinot Petirion No. / IN THE Ml'LTEER OF: PETJTIONER :\^' ......^^ ^•••^y '^"^ Pravjn Kumar Mishra Age about 34 years, S/o Late Stu-i Ramlakhaa Mistu-a f. R/o WorJdng as post of Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle Sctiool Rajendra Nagar, BUaspur (C.G.j A^ REiSPOWDENT 1 MandK.umar, Secretary, Educational Department, State Govt. of ChhatUsgarh D.K.S. Bhawan, Distt-Ra^ur (C.G.) 2-- B.L-Kurrey BUaspur, Dj'stt - Bilaspur (C.G.) PETlTmNUNDERAJB.TlCl.EZlSQPTHE COAIS3ITUTJON OF JWDJA StEAD WITH SEGTUION t4 QF TfclE CONTEMPT OF COUBIS.ACT TWE PETmONERABOiVEWIWED WOST RESPECtFUtMIS^MftlETU; N. \ an^I ^il ftS-tl'b 1 ?^n 'sn^TsCTW •a <. t Tsr ';:;rrpn?T^, ^^R^, ^i-iiy^ ^^€=k^:..G^<^^^^':'^l^^ 3^'ttg^ (1i??Ta^) T' TOIIWHfCT 3II^II SB^Hon'bl^Shri Manindra Moh^ 05-09-2011 Shri Mukesh Sharma, couns^l for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel fjsr respondent No.2. Heard. This petition has been f|led by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of order dated Op-11-2007 passed bythis Court in W.P.(S)No.6649of2007. Learned counsel for the p^ claimed two advance incrennents 1998 and 01-03-1999 and the ord vide order dated 02-11-2007, th^ disposed off in terms of order pa) Bharadwaj (supra), subject to v( that the petitioner had obtained D per order of the Court, two advanc|i byt, vide order dated 08-04-2008, 'TprfCTiih ^w?ff ^' fevQ ifsi^n ^aiSmsn^i n Shrivastava. J. titioner submits that the petitioner had ^n the strength of circular dated 24-12- ^r passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj V^. Municipal Corporatlon, Durg and another, 2006(11) MPJR-CG-96. Ij.earned counsel further submitted that writ petition was allowed and finally sed in the case of Yashwant Kumar /ferification of facts as to whether the petitioner had acquired D.Ed. exanjiination certificate on his own expenses as per circulars dated 24-12-1998 has been paid two advance increi|nents or not. Learned counsel submits bnd 01-03-1999 and further whether he Ed. certificate on his own expenses in the year 1999-2000 and was appoi^ted in the year 1994, and therefore, as e increments ought to be given to him, 'the same has been rejected, which is contemptuous. He submits that f((r rejecting the claim of the petitioner, circular dated 06-02-2007 has beer) made a basis, which was not a subject .1 ff \: £ '&- .. ^ ^ i?>, ^> ^y £/ ^£iSssf".^- ^.... T' ,.--^' '"^sss1"' XI-HC—78 SV^V ^I WM W Sf^S *W* + -y-Si -^TRRPT, -^l ?, l<s|'-liyll< TOTWHfCT sn^t STI^ST IR^; (1$qf3«i^r) -2-1 matter of consideration before the opposed on that ground before the On the other hand, learnec< qiTqfwih 'WTCTi i| fyS t?3RgTC ^affW3:n^ff that the respondent-contemnor l|ias not committed any contempt. He submits that the respondent tool^ petitioner in the light of order pasjsed by this Court. He further submitted that the writ petition was allowe of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj 24-12-1998 and 01-03-1999 were training certificate, at their own ej pourt nor the claim of the petitioner was ICourt. counsel for respondent No.2 submitted bonafide decision bn the claim of the 1 subject to verification of facts as to whether the petitioner had acquir^d D. Ed. examination certificate on his own expenses as per circulars dat^d 24-12-1998 and 01-03-1999. He also submitted that the petition was allo|fl/edin terms of order passed in the case supra). Learned counsel submitted that the State vide its circular date|d 06-02-2007, earlier circulars dated clarified and it was decided that those who have been appointed after 16t06-1993 and have obtained B. Ed/B.T.I. (penses, during the period from 23-10- 1964 to 01-03-1999 would be entil(ed to such benefit. Therefore, the claim ofthe petitioner has been rejected.] This Court had allowed th^ vide order dated 02-11-2007 in writ petition filed by the writ petitioner erms of order passed in the case of yashwan(KumarB/»aratfwa/(si4:)ra).lnthatcase, it has been held that circular dated 01-03-1999 is appli^able only in case ofAssistant Teachers (Lower Division Teachers) and hot to other teachers (Upper Division Teachers). That was a case of a t^acher other than the Assistant Teacher. Admittedly, in the present case, th^ petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. The .-1. ^~f. x T .^•' •"6.. 'S^i' : XI-HC—78 SflS^ ^T R-ll'b wffsn^i stitiii* Tumane 's^ ^Wv^, '^xftaTrs, fsidiy^ •T^ 200 TCTIW ^HfttI ail^!! sn^rr •crera; c^fjo^q) .--s— circular dated 01-03-1999 clarifiect on, theState had again issued ani|)ther circular dated 06-02-2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be cjarrect in submitted thatwhile considering the case of the petitioner, the re^pondent did not correctly consider the claim of the petitioner. However,,th)at would be a ground for the petitioner to assail the correctness and validi circular dated 06-02-2007 was not; Court, when the writpetition was| two advance increments. Therefo has been denied to him, With the aforesaid direction ^sNwfrT 'qrroi <f ft^ fra^re ^dffinaiT^l earlier circular dated 24-12-1998. Later y of order dated 08-04-2008. Though, placed by either of the parties before the finally disposed off on 02-11-2007, the circular appears to be relevant wfiile considering claim regarding grant of e, in the aforesaid circumstances, 1 am not inclined to proceed further i|i the matter and the rule istherefore discharged. However, the petition^r would be at liberty to assail the legality and validity oforder dated 08-04-2008, bywhich, two advance increments the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge X