Pl ^ ^E^ ero m THB HIGH COXJRT OF JUDICATOREATMLASPUR WRrr rsrmos rsi tio.; ("& <3 /aooe PSTITIOWER ^f^ ^"^5-?-' /••:^^' ^yy ^ Jt's- .r T.RAWtNDRA SINGH S/o Shri, T.N.Bhan Singh, Aged about 37 Years, By Occupation, Upper Division Teacher, Govemment Model Higher Secondary School Dantewada , Distt. South Bastar (C.G,) -:VERSUS: - A®"' ^SPONDENTS: l. StateofCUtottisgarli 7 ^.-^SS^^ ^ '»iS!K,.w% Through the Secretary, Department ofScheduled Tribe- Scheduled Cast and Triable Welfare Department, Raipur D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralya Raipur.(C.G.) 2. Tbe Cottsvtot Dantewada District South Bastar (C.G.) ^. AssistantCommBssionw, Department ofTriabIe Welfare Dantewada, Diistt. South Bastar (C.G.) 4. Priacipal, Government Model Higher Secondary School Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UWDBR ARTICI.B 226 7227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OP INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OBL'raB DIRECTION (Sl. OR ORDER <S XI-HC-78 3n^r?.rR^i<t> (RT3n^Tsbt11°h Stibhash 'v S^'^FIRTT, o-rfl^'ie, (s|diyy,<. . C^.P.C^ l^o. 6^13/06 *imrti sh+<i^i ^T 200 3)1^1 Maqi ('i^t^l't'T) ??(IRK tif^r an^r 15.12.2006 ned counse! for the parties, the Shri Prakosh Tiwari, Mvo^t Smt. Anju Ahuja, Depu't^' State/respondents. With the consent of !eah writ petition i.s heard fina!ly. Common order dictated J!|i Writ Petition (5.) 6812/2006 in open Court, passed separotely. Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge '»>i<iFCT41-< Hmvti if tet(9'<Ri«i< ^sif^rsn^r ;ate for the Petitioner(s5. ©overnment .Advocate for* the P.T.O. •g HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUft W. P. (5) No. 6812 of 2006 Petitioner : Sanjay Kumar Thakur Versus Respondents: Sta+e of Chhattisgarh & o1+iers W. P. (5) No. 6813 of 2006 Petitioner : T. Rwindra Singh Versus State of Oihattisgarh & others W. P. (5) No. 6814 of 2006 Petitioner : Ku. Pramila Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh And W. P. (5) No. 6815 of2006 Versus SJrg!®Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sstish K. (Agnihotri. Present: Shri Prakash Tiowri, Smt. Anju Ahuja, bepu the Petitioner(s). Advocate for the OR&ER (Passed on 15" day of becember, 2006) 1. The petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers/Upper Diyision Teachers/Head Master in the 9overnment schools. In the course of their services as Assistant Teachers/Upper bivision Teachers/Head 3^ Master, the petitioners have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. examination certift'cates on their own expenses before 1.3.1999. 2. Writ Petition (5) No.s 6812/2006, 6813/2006, 6814/2006 md 6815/2006 are being disposed of by this common order as -rtie facts and question of law invofved in tiiese petitions are common. 3. Accordmq to fearned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of fhis Court in the case of Yashuwnt Kumar Bharadwni Vs. Municioa! Corporation. &urca and another (2006 CEI) MPJR-C6 96}. TTiis Court in the case of Yashwemt Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), came to the conclusion thoit the -teachers, urfio had obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate on their own expenses, are coversd by the circular dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) issued by +he State Sovernment of Madhya Prade^i. 4. Further in the matter- of Smt. Manorama Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L5.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai, ©watiorBench, w^tite considering the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, wrfio have acquirecf B. Ed. degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shal! bs entitled to two advance increments, reiied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastaya Vs. State of M.P. & others passed in O.A. No. 1632/99, dscided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed that the cir-cufar dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B. Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entitled It is pointsd out by (earned tiiat the then State of counsel appearing for the petitioners Pradesh had fifed a Special Leave 6. Petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed Specml Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 filed against the order of the Tribunai. Therefore, the direction to the effect that +he circuiar dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retr'ospectiveiy, passed by the Tribuna!, becomes final and the same shall be applicable to al! the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. examination certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a circuiar dated 17.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the circular ctearly states about the decisioh of tiie Sjpreme Court. Learned counset for the petitioners further submits that the facts and question of law invoived in the present case are squarety covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadtwj Vs. Munictpa! Corporation, &urg ond another (Supra), to vuhich learned counsel appearing for the respondents falrly concedes and agrees with the averment made by learned counse! appearing for the 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the order possed in the case of Yadiwant li'umar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and ouiother (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected matters. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' Sufchssh