IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) PETITIONER: ‘ ,Dilharan Lal Sahu S/O / Shri Mahtaru Ram Sahu, Aged 46 years, Working as U. D.T. Govt. Higher Secondary School Kotba, R/o Village Khursi Tehsil Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : ”f. Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare,’ Mantralaya D.K.S. ' Raipur (C.G.) . ”Asst. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deparment District Jashpur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 e2? OF THE CONSTITUTION?‘OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: @> IG CORT F SGRHTBI R W. P. N0. 6940 of2006 Respondents Pen'tioner Gaumm Sai Versus Respondents : 'S1ntcofChhaftisgarh&anothcr W. P. No. 6941 d2006 Pet'm'oner : Shyam Sngh Paikam Vmus : State of mattisgarh & another W. P. No. 6942 (£2006 Petitionm : Di1hamn Lal Sahu Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & another ‘A’ Singe Bench: Hon’blc Mr. Jusu'cc mh R. Whom. Shn‘ Rahul Jha, Adv0catc for the Pcu'tw'ncts. Shri Anm Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State] respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 13m day of Dacembcr, 200m The petitioners are worhng as Upper Division Teachers/Assismnt Teachers in the government schools. m the course of their services as Upper Division Teachers/Assismnt Teachers, the petitioners have obtained B.Ed.IB.T.I. examinan‘on certihcates on their own expenses before 1.3. 1999. Writ Petition No.s 6940/2006, 6941/2006 and 6942/2006 are being disposed of by this common omer as the facts and question of law involved in these pen'tions are common. According to learned counsel for the petitbners, the petitioners are entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the casc of Yashwant Kumar Bhamdwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dulg and anofhrr (Supm), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed, /B.’I‘.[. Examination Oerh‘kate on their own expenses, am covemd by the circular dated 24.12.98 (Annexum Pl?) issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Further in the matter of Smt. Mannmma Shrivastava Va. State of M.P. and others g 2000 (1) M.P.Ls.R. 136- } the Madhya Pradesh State Adminisuative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, while considering the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. degme at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall he entitled to two advance increments, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kmnar Shrivastava Vs. smte of MP. & others pwsed in O.A.No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed that the circular dated 1.3. 1999 cannot be made applicable muospectively. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B.Ed. degree before 1.§.1999 is entitird to two advance increments. It is pointed out by learned counselappearing for the petih'oners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had hled a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Special leave Petition No. 1999/2000 m against the cider of the Tribunal. Therefore, the diiection to the eEect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes hnal and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B.Ed./BILL examination certihcate before @ 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a cimular dated 17.10.20d3 issued by’ thc present smte of Madhya Pmdesh wherein thg cinema clearly states about thc decision or th Supreme Court. Leamed counsel for the peu‘u'onem futthsr submits that the fads and question of Jaw involved in ths present case am squarely covexed by decision of thn’ Court in the cme of Yashwant Kumar Bhaladwaj Vs. Municipal Oorpomiion, Durg and another (Supla), to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by learned counsel appearing for the peu'tioners. . Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the order pmsed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), subject to verihcatbn of the fact as to whether the pen‘tioners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.l. Examination Cerh'hcate on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whetner they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. ‘ - A copy of this order be placed on record ofconnected matters. ‘2 .t Sd/- Thakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge e ‘