?n?^ m'^^fN vc^ ^rr qTTTrf^y 3Tfyq)T°T ^T^ift^ m^T H. TT. 3fr. ^. 3, ^.^-.^^ 2Q02 4^W^^ ^T^qTT 4 3f?r w°"T :<fhrfh ^nrii I^TT^ irftt - WT T^rTYr 1a;TH1|V f^TQ^ frT-Rirr 3TT? (Trim 38 ^ q-rTT- ^l-. ^*"^. 58/1 ^TT^ ^. t ( TTT^TT ^ rrqg'<T 5. :IT. i^s. 1.5Tcft?^1? TTT^ %TFT- ^fV^ 7W 1YTEJT 'f^lT:rT v^rm ^t. "^. ^r. ^^ rT^r E* ^. 2. yroTrr^, rft^ lTTOl3T TmpT^TrTO 7TWT 5< T[. 3. -f^r -ft-T^n- 3T-f^yrfr, TT^T 0'. 3T. ^ 3T ^ tPT ^^T tJTFT 1 9. TI.J. ^-TT7Tf^9T arfyq^iH' 1985 tefl'AiittiV^lsttiSUA^ ^ M?eH COURT OF CHHATTCS^ARH AT BILA^UR W. P. (5} No. 4924 of 2005 Petltloner : - Smt. Nirapyre Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & another SjngSe Bench: Hon'bJe Mr. Justice Satlsh K. ^gnlhotrl. Present: Siri A.5* Rajput, Advocate for the Petltioner, Smt* Anju Ahuja, Deputy Sovernment Advocate for 1+ie State/respondents OR&ER (Passed on 15th cioty of Dscember, 2006) 1. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teocher in the government school. In the course of their ^ervices as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner has obtained BTJ, exatnination certificate on their owi expenses before 1.3.1999. 2, According to learned counse! for fne petitioner, 1+ie petitioner is entitled to two advance increments in view of the decision of this Court m the of Yashwant Kunnar Bharadwij Vs. MuniciDal CorDoration. Durq and another {2006 CEI) MPJP.-C<5 96). TTiis Court in "t+ie case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadyraj Vs. AAunlcipa! Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), to the concluslon that the teachers, had obtalned B< Ed7B.TJ. Examinatbn Certificate on tiieir owi expenses, are covered by the clrcujar dated 24.12.98 (Annexure P/7) Issued by t4ie State Soverni?ient of MadhyG Pradesh* 3. 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 jAdministrative TrIbunaS, ^^^lior Bench, w+ii(e considering fne drcufar 1,3,1999 wherein, it is provided that the Asslstant Teachers, have acquired B* Ed, degree at their own cost between 23*10*1964 and 7<5.1973 shaiJ be entitled to two advance increments, refied on oecjs-fon in the of Kumar Sirivastava Vs, State of M.P. & o^iers passed in O.A. No. 1632/99. dedded on 12.10.1999 ^erein it is -rtiat the circular 1.3.1999 cannot be app!icab!e retrospectiveiy* Tnus, a teacher, be As^istant Teacher, vrfio has obtained B. Ed. degree before 13.1999 is entitled to two advance increments. L 4. It i's pointed out by fearned coun^i appearing for the petitioner that fne fnen Stat©of Madhya Pradesh had filed a Spedal bewe Petition against 1+ie orders by the Tribunal and fne Hon'bie Sjpreme Court Leaye Petition No. 1999/2000 fited against the order of the Tribunal, Therefore, the direction to the effect fnat the circular 1.31999 cannot be made appjicabte retrospectivejy, by 1+ie Tribunal, final and the be to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtalned B* Ed*/BTX examination certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 by Ifie present State of Madhya Pradesh ^ierein the circular clearly states about the decision of the Supreme Court, 5. Learned counseS for tiie petitioner further submits that the facts and question of taw involved in 1+ie present case is squarety covered by decision of fnis Court in the of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipa! Corporation, Durg ano'rfier (Supra), to ^rfiich learned appearin9 f^r the fairly and wit+s the averment made by counseS appearing for the petitioner. 6, Accordi^Sy, the writ petitton is aSSowed in terms of order in the of Yashwant Kutrsar Bharad^aj Vs< Municjpal Corporation, Durg and another (Sjpra), subject to verjfication of the fact as to whether fne petitjoners have acquired B» Ed./B.TJ* Examination Cartlficate on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whether they have been paid two odvance increments or not. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhc^h