^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARHAT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION (S) N0.68°"/2006 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. :.-»^ ^r^J .^^5>"": ^y^" &y ..-"*° 2. 3. INDIA, Shyam Kumar Nayak (B.Ed.), aged about/ 44 years, son of Shri Meenketan Nayak, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Khichri, Vikas Khand Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through / - Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer - Raigarh Block Education Officer Vikas Khand Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG) ^!^^SWFVVst;£f^^S?^. XI-HC-78 _3^ ^TPnaq', »T{l.w'l6. Rli?)lti4< XI-HC-78 *fT+<?n ss^icf^ 3sTsirai?ra~, aTfl.^'is, Ridi+fy _.t^U-} 6^o-o_. . ^200^ 3TT^?T 4a<ti (y<i^(gi^fl) sn^rw l^.fi+ craT3n^Tsb*f ^iTwgfersn^T +ifiri41.1 WRifff tetg' iKiw( ^;3T)^IT3T|^T 11.12.200^6 Shri A.N. Bhakta, couns^l for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja G.A. foi|the respondents/State. The petitioner is workin^ as Assistant Teacher in Government Schooi. In the course of hi petitioner has obtained B.Ed. 1.3.1999. According to learned entitled to two advance increm in the case of Yashwant c|ounsel for the petitioner, petitioner is increm^nts in view ofthe decision ofthis Court Kumar Bharadwai Vs. Municipal corooration. Dura and anothifer This Court in the case of Yasl Corporation, Durg and anothe] the teachers, who had obtain^ on their own expenses, are issued by the State Governmei) Further in the matter State of M.P. and others Madhya Pradesh Administra ^ ser/ice as Assistant Teacher, the bertificate at his own expenses before ^r reported in2006 (2) MPJR -CG9S. want Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal r (supra), came to the conclusion that ?d B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate by the circular dated 24.12.1998 it of Madhya Pradesh. col/ered ;f Smt. Manorama Shrivastava Vs. r^ported in 2000 (1) MPLSR 136, the tive Tribunal, Gwalior Bench whjle XI-HC-78 sn^T^rf^iN; (IWSD^TshKi* ^ *ii*icii sb^irei 3^''<<l<ll<vt<<,»T)l'M'l<o,Rlcfttiy< _c<A^.a7.6foQ •• © V^ 2006 31i^i <<af) ('i^id'ayr) ^nwfffN'sn^T considering the circular dated Assistant Teachers who have between 23.10.1964 and 7.5. increments, relied on the dec Shrivastava Vs. State of Mg Original Application No. 1632/1 is observed that the circuld applicable retrospectively. Thu| who has obtained B.Ed. degj advanced increments. oilders It is pointed out by t!(< petitioner that the thenState Leave Petition against fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court disnli 1999/2000 fiied against the direction to the effect that the applicable retrospectively, pas{ the same shall be applicabte <|c obtained B.Ed./BTI certificaltes +i'!if<-i']fl-( 4ii)c)Tff fec^ <Riwi< ^>3ff^q'3n^T 1.3.1999 wherein it is provided that the ^cquired B.Ed. degree at their own cost 1973 shall be entitled to two advance lision in the case of Rakesh Kumar dhya Pradesh and others passed in 1999 decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it ir dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made >, a teacher may be Assistant Teacher, •ee before 1.3.1999 is entitled to two e learned counsel appearing for the 'f Madhya Pradesh had filed a Special passed by the Tribunal and the issed the Speciai Leave Petition No. order of the tribunal. Therefore, the ircular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made >ed by the Tribunal, becomes final and > all the Assistant Teachers, who have before 1.3.1999. It is further XI-HC-78 qTK^I shHltft 3^ •^wici<4, ^Tn.'y'iii, Ridiuy .__u^cV CV0€>- ^200$ sn^r CRR; (^gfgg^r) gn^r^rf?:TN) (raTsn^T^tira STdTWfff^TSII^T ^ipfe^r irroff ff te^t rf^zre ^STf^q'SIT^T ''•-•-,•. M ^ '< substantiated by a circular da ied 17.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh wherjsin the circular cleariy states about the decision of the Hon'ble Supremfe Court. Learned counsel for the and question of law involved petitioner further submits that the facts |n the present case of petitioner are squarely covered by the decisioti of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) to wl|iich leamed counsei appearing for the respondent/State fairly concec] made by learned counsei appea Accordingly, the writ peti| es and agrees with the averments ring for the petitioner. Bon is allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in the matter of Y^shwant Kuamr Bharadwaj subject to verification of the fact as to whefther the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. certificate at his own expenses|as per the cireular dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whetjher he has been paid two advance increments or not. No order as td costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.