^^ ^ro J^ '2» r^r;&s?st i?4,.;'^^.l< IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W. P.(S). NO.S^^-5' /2006 PETITIONER ^^> r.^^'y ^r^y .^.." .••? <;'' ,-ii-' '<•' ,,> RESPONDENT ^ ^\ ^^° QV^\3 Praveen CHandra Sahu S/o Shri Siyaram Sahu Age about 37years, Village-Champajhar Post-ChampajharTehsil - Nayapara Rajim Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1 /' State Govt. ofChhattisgarh Througti Secretary Educational Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Drictt.-Raipur(C.G.) District Education Officer Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL.ASPUR W. P. (s', No. 5753 of2006 Petitioiier Respondents petitioner j°espondents Petitioaer Respondents Petitroner ResDond.euts Petitioner Responclents Sakun Bhimagai Versus State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers W. P. fsl No. 5754 of2006 Smt. Shyaiiilata Dhruva ,us State of Cnhatti.sgai-h & oGiers W. P. (si No. 5758 of2006 Likhesh Kumar Sea ~\7,'ersus State of Cliliattisgarh & ofhers /. P. is) No. 5759 of2006 Praveen Chandra Saliu Versus State of Chhattisgarli & otliers W. P. is} No. 5760 of2006 Dhaiiirara Bava versus itate of Chhattisgai-h Sn others Eeffich: Hoii"ole Mr. Justice K. Afiaiiiotri. Snri .°jni'L PCuEiai' Shanna, Advocate for the Petitioners. Sbri Utkarsh Verma, Govt. Advocaxe for the State/ respondeat' 9. O R D ER (27t11 October, 2006) That the petitioners are workiag as Assistaiit Teachers ia fie goveninient schools. In the course of faeir serv'ices as Assistaiit Tea.chers, the petitioners have otitailied B.Ed./B.T,!. examiaation certificates 011 tlieir ovvn expeases belbre 1.3.1999. Writ Petition (S) No.s 5753/2006, 5754/2006, 5758/2006, 5759/2006 aiid 5760/2006 are bemg disposed ofby this coniinoii order as the facts and question of law iavolved ia these petitions are conuaon. 3. According to learaed couiisel for the petitioners, fh.e petitioners are entifled to tivo advance increinents ta view of tlie decision of th.is Court in the case of Yashwaat Kuinar Bharadwai Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg said another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court iil fhe case of Yashvvai-it Kuiaar Bharadwaj Vs. Miinicipal Corporation, Durg and anotlier (Supra), came to tlie conclusioil TIiat tlie teacbers, who had o'btaiiied B. Ed. /B.T.I. Examiiianou Certiiicste on their owii expenses, are covered by tlie circular dated 24.12.98 (Aanexure P/7) issued by the State GoveniiEent ol' Madhya Pradesh. 4. Furtfaer in tlie inatter of Smt. Maiioraiiia Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. aad, otliers { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } tbff Madliya Pradesh State Aditurdstrative Tribunal, Gwalior Beiicli, wiiile consiaering the circular dated 1.3.1999 whereiii; it is provided tliat Uae Assistant Teachers, wlio nave acquired B.Ed. clegree at fheir own cost be-tweeQ 23.10.1.964 aad 7.5.1973 shaU be eatitled to two advance increments, relied on decision m. the case of Ralcesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. S» others passed in O.A.No. 1632/99, decided oa 12.10.1999 whereis. it is ooserved that fhe circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be inade applicable retrospectivejy. Tlras, a teacher, Eiay be Assistant Teacher, who has obtaiaed B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is eiititled to two advaiice m.creinents. 5, It is poiirted out by leamed counsel appeajiiig &r tlie petitioaers tliat the tlien State of Madnya Praflestl had filed a Special Leave Petitioa. against tae orders passed by the Tribunal aiicl uie Hon'ble Supreine Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 liled aggjiist the order of the T'ribunal. T'herefore, the directiou to fhe effect tliat ftie circzilar datecl 1,3.1999 cannot be niade appucable retrospectively, passed by tlie Tribunal, beconies tuial aiid tlie saiiie sliall be applics.ble to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtEiiaed B.Ed./B.T.]. exaiauiation certi.&ca-te before 1.3.1999. It is fiirther substaiitiated "v a circular dated F 17.10.2003 issued by fhe present State of Madhya Pradesh wherein Tlie circular clearly states about fhe decision of the Supreiae Court. 6. Leamed coiznsel for tlie petitioners furtlier subinits tbat the f&cts and question of law involved in the present ca.se are sqiiarely covered by decisio'n of fiiis Coiirt. iii tlie case of Yashwaiit K-asiar Bharadwaj Vs. M-tUiicipal Corporation, Durg Eixicl aaotbi.er (Supra), t.o v.'hicli learaed counsel appeamig for tlie rsspondents fairly concedes and agrees wit.h tlie averiiient raa.de bv leanietl counsel fr a.ppeai-mg tor uie petiTioiiers. Accordingly, the writ petition is ajlowed ia terms of tb.e order passed iii tlie case of Yashwant. Kuinar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg aiid aiiolher (Supra), subject to veri:5cation of tlie fact as to whefber tae petitio-aers bave acquij-ed B. Ed./B.T.L ExEmiination Certiticate 011 their owii expenses as per tiie crrculars dated 24.12.1998 aad 1.3.1999 smd farfher whether ti-iev have beea paid two advasce iiicrements or not. No order as to costs. K. A copv offhis order be placed on record in. connectecl Eiatters. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge