Rt-rfs^ilw^ri^?^ usss'woi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDieATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH F.P.(S>NO. S'^S') / 2006 Petitioner ^^^s^'--" daied...---"^,^^^ l-1ari Shankar Pandey,y S/o. Shri Gokul Prasad Pandey, Aged about 44 years, Upper Division. Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School Pali, Block-Pali, Distt.-K6rba(CG.) %: VERSUS Respondent's ^g^fe ^^^' /-y''/ •-,- State of Chhattisgarh & Others Through- The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare D.K.S. Bhawan.Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner Tribal Welfare.. Department Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur , Asstt. CQmmlssioner. Tribal Welfare Department, Distt-Korba(C.G.) WRrL_PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTLO^ OnNDIA FORISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT, WRITS, DIRECTIQN ETC TQ DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. ^?— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR t-. Petitioner RcspoDdents Petitioner Rcspoxidents W. P. fsl No. 5930 of2006 Shanker Lal Kadiyap Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (st No. 5931 of2006 Versus Hari Shankar Pandey /ersus : StatK.of Chfiattisgarh & ofheis ^And W. P. (sl No. 5932 of 2006 Petitioner : Ashok Kiimar Sinha Versus Respoiidents : StateofChhattisgarh&othera Sln^e Bench: Honlile Mr. Jiistice Sirtteh K. AgnUiotari. Prcsent Shri Anil Smgh Rqput, Advocate for the Petitioncrs, Sint Aaju Ahuja, Deputy Govenuaent Advocatse firf fhe State/respondcnts. ORDER (2ndNovem,ber, 3006) The petitioners are woriang as Upper Division Teachers/Lectuers fia. the govcrumeut schools. In thc course offheir scmces as Upper Division Teachers/Lectuers, the petitioners have obtained B. Ed. cxainmatk>n certificates on their own expeiises before 1.3.1999. Writ Petittoa (S) No.s 5930/2006, 5931/2006 aud 5932/2006 are being disposcd ofby this cominqui onler as fhe facts and question oflawinvolved mthese petitionsiare commoa. Accordiag to leamed coiuisd for thc petitioaers, the petitioxiers are entifled to two advance increinents in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kuinar Bharadwai Vs. Mwucipal Corpoiation, Dure and anofher {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Gourt in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwa} Vs. Muiucipal Corporation, Diug and another (Supr^, came to fhc concluskni that thc tcachers, who had obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. Exaininatioa Certifteate on their owu expenses, are covered by the ^ ciroular dated 24.12.^ (Annexure P-l)' isaued by fhe State Ckwemmeat of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Purthcr in thc mattcr of Snit ManoEaxua Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya PcEriesh State Adnunistrative Tribunal, Gwalur Beach, whjle considema^; the cnciilar dated l.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B. M. dcgree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shaU be entitled to two advance iacremeats, iclied on decision in fhe case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Statc of M.P. & others passed in O.A. No. 1632/99, decidcd on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed that the circular dated 1.3.1999 caunot be made applicabte retrospectivefy. Thus, a teacher, inay be Aasistant Teacher, who has obtaincd B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entided to two advaace mcxcnaents. • . 5. It is pointed out by learae<| counsel appearing for the petitioncrs that the then State of Madliya Pradesh had filed a Special Leave Ptetition against the ordcrs passed by the Tribuaal aiid the Hon'bte Supreme Court dismissed Special Leavc Petition No. 1999/2000 filed against the order of the TribunaL TheTefore, the direction to the efiEect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot bc naade appUcablc retoospectivefy, passed by the Tribuaal, becomes final and thc same shaU be appUcable to all the Assistaut Teachers who have obtained B. Ed. examination certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substautiatied by a cucular dated 17.10.2003 issued by tihe present State of Madhya Pradcsh wherein the circular clearfy statesaboutfhedficisionoffheSupienafiCourt. t •^ 6. Leamed coiuisd fbr the petitfonera further subxnits that fhe facts and question of ]aw iavolved in the prescnt ceise are squarcty covered by decision of tius Gourt ia the case 'of Yashwaat Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiucipal Corporation, Duigaad another (Supia), to which learaed counscl appcaring &r the respondents fairty concedes and agrees with the avennent made by kamed couasel appearmg for the pctitioners. - 7. Ascordmgty, the writ petitions are allowed in tenus of the oider passed in the case of Yashwant Kuinar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiuciial Corporation, Dtu'g aad aaother (Supra), subject to verification of thc fact as to whedier the petitioners have acquired B. Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate on their own expenses as per the circulais dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whether thcy have beeu paid two advance increments or Uot. No oider as to costs. 8, A copy offtiis order be placed oa record in coiinected matters. Sulthaeh. Sd7- SatishK.Agnihotii Judge y- •y