's «'s ^3;| p Rpy"y a3~.^, ^^.^^S'11 ./"L £70 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (Sl N0. ^7 3^ / 2006 Petitioner (, .-" ^&v; ^•sc3f. -••K-^"'\' ^lo-- ^ •^ •-<^^' Smt. Seeta Jaiswal, W/o. Shri Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged about 46 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Pali, Tahsil & Block Pali, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents ^ W. ' ..s •'S V"€:^u%^' ^ r 1. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Through- The Secretary, Department of School Education/ T.W.D, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) / 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Asstt. Commissioner v Tribal Welfare Department, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT. WRITS. DIRECTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. l4P@9ts3- ^ H3GH COURT OF CHHATT!SOARH AT B2LASPUR Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W, P, is}_ No. 5735 of2006 Sint. Seeta Jaiswal /'ersus State of Cbliattisgarh & anofher W. P._is) Mo. o736 of2006 Ssat. Brigit Lakra Versus State of Chhattisgarh fis aaother W. P. (s) No. 5737 of2006 Petitioner : Smt. Alka Muzumdai- Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarll Ss aiot.faer B-eacia: HoTXVle Mr. Justice K. Aeaihatti. Sliri Aiiil Siiigh Rajput, Advocate for the Petitioners.' Shri Ut.karsh Vei-ma, Govt. Aclvocate fbr the State/respoadents. O R D EK (27th October, 2006) fc 9- The petitioners are worfcmg as Assistant Teacbers m the govemiaent schools, In tlic cozirse of fheir services as Assistant T-T'eachers, tlie petitioners bave obtsiaed B.Ed./B.T.l. exammation ceititicates on theii- own expenses before 1.£5.1999. Writ Petition (S) No.s 5735/2006, 5736/2006 and 5737/2006 are beiag disposed ofby fn.is coiasio'o. order as the facts a-ad question oflay iiivolyed ia fbese petitions are coiasion. According to learaed coiinsel for the petitioners, tfae petitloners are entiflsd to two advasce iscresients in view of the decisioii of •?-~^"S- ^-:^ •^"^^^i .'^/TtC^^S /"s'i' ^/a^ ^-l'TTT'7r^--n ^ ^ l":-^^"> <w!-''* ^—^^"iJ~>-S"V/^»f^TTT* r^; - ^. 7 t-tl-l-S ^^J't4Ll4, 111 U.1C tJdAC Ul I.o.a;AiW<3j.i,L F^UlUfciJ. Dl.lcU.iAUvVeli ••/'Si, Muiiic4?al Corporation, Durg aiid aaother {2006 (!I) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court ia the case of Yashwant Kusiar Bhara.dwaj Vs. Muaicipal C.orporation, Durg ancl another (Supra), caine to tlie coaclusion that tlie teachers, who had obtaiaed B. Ed, /B.'T'.I. Exainiaation Certilicate 011 tlieir owii expenses, are covered by fee cu-cular dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) iss-i.ied by the State Goveraiaent of Madhva Pradesh. Furtlier in the -sisSler of Smt. Maaoraina Shrwastava Vs. State of M.P. and omers { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } itw Madbya Pradesli State Adininistrative Tribunal, Gwallor Beach, wbile considermg tlie circrJar dated 1.3.1999 whereia, it is pi-ovid'ed that fhe Assisteait Teachers, who ha.ve acquired B.Ed. degree at ihsir own cost between 23.10.1964 aad 7.5.1973 shall be entitled to two advaace aicreincnts, relied 011 decision ia fhe case of Rakesh Kuraar Sbrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & ofliei's passed in O.A.No. l632,/99, decided on 12.10.1999 whereia it is observed tbat the circ'ular dated 1.3.1999 caanot be made applicable retrospectively. Thiis, a teacher, raay be A.ssistaiit Teaclier, who has obtaiiied B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 i.s entifled to tavo advance increments. [t is po'm.ted out by learned counsel appeariag for tiie petitioners that tlie flien Sta.te of Madl-iva Pradesh had riled a. Special Leave Petition against fhe orders passed by fae 'I'riauaaS and the Hoa'ble SiTpreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petitioa No. 1999/2000 SJed agatnst tlie order of fhe T'ribunal. Txierefore, tlie directioa to tbe effect fb.at flie circiilar dated 1.3.1999 cannot be jaade applicable retrospectively, passed by the Trib-uaal, becomes fiiial aild tiie same shall be appMcable to all fhe Assistaat Teachers who liave obtaiiied B.Ed./B.T.I. examiiiation certificate before 1.3.1999. It is farther substaiitiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by tlie present State of Madhya Pradesh whereiil tlie cu'cular cleariv states about the decision of fhe Suprerae Court. 0. Leai~aed counsel for the petitioners fiirflier submits ttiat tiie facts snd q'aestion of law involved in •Qis preseat case are squarely covered Dy decisioa of this Co'irt iii tlie case of YaslWi-ailt. Kuaiar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Coi~pora*ion, Durg aud ajiother (Supra), to which leamed coiinsel appearmg for fae respoadcnts fairly coacedes and agi^es iviGl tlie averruent inade bv leanied counsel appem~ia.g for the petitioiiers. 7. Accordtngly, the writ petitioil is aUowed ia tei-ms of the order passed iii tlie case of Yashwant Kuinar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Coi'poration, Durg aiid ailoth.er (Siipra), subject to vei'iiication of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B. Ed./B.T.I. ExEmiTiiation Certiiicate on their own expeases as per tlie cii-culai's dated 24.12.1998 acd 1.3.1999 aiid further whether thev have been oaid tno atlvance iiicreBients or iiot. No order as to costs. Thakui copy of ftiis order be placed on record in. connected inatters. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihof1 Judge