! ••^ / l-~, <... v;-' ^, l:'^ ^ ^s^^'.i. i^:^^ u IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURtC.Gt WritPetitionNO ^}B2-C> /2005 PETITIONERS ^l. Shiromani Chandraker aged about 38 years s/o Shri Chhotelal Chandraker Asst. Teacher Primary School Purena, Block-Dharsiwa Dist- Raipur (C.G) ^ ^, ./ MA ,TS^/ ^M ^%^ Yodhan Singh Dewangan, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri Gendalal Dewangan, Asst. Teacher Priniary School Purena, Block-Dharsiwa Dist- Raipur (C.G) Kabir Saran Hirwani, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Netram Hirwani, Asst. Teacher Primary School Pureha, Block- Dharsiwa Dist- Raipur (C.G) Sampat Kumar Mishra, aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Rampratap Mishra, Asst. Teacher Primary School Purena, Block- Dharsiwa Dist- Raipur (C.G) Manohar Lal Chandrakar, aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Nathuram Chandrakar, Asst. Teacher Priniary School Purena, Block-Dharsiwa Dist- Raipur (C.G) Gokul Ram Sahu, aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Murku Ram Sahu, Asst. Teacher Primary School Purena, Block- Dharsiwa Dist- Raipur (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Though the Secretary Department of School Education, Mantralay, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G) (@ (2) 2. Director, Public Instruction, Pension Bada Raipur (C.G) .' 3. District Education Officer District- Raipur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA i L HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITtON N0.4820 OF^OOS Petitioners Shiromani Chandraker and others vereus Resoondents : The State of Chhattisgarh and ottiere Present : Mr. Rakesh Anttony, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondents. ORDiR (Passed on 10In of November, 2006) Learned counsel appearingfor ftie petitioners submitsttiat petitionere No.2 and 5 bepermitted to withdraw their p^ition with liberty to file a fresh petition as they are claiming reltef of grant of two advanc® increments not on the basisof B.Ed./B.T.I. Certificates but on the Nisis of D.Ed. Certificate. Learned counsel for Viw petitionere furtier subnaits that fhe other petitioners are claiming the relief of grarrt of two advance increments on the basis of B.EdJB.T.I. Certifieates. 2. Accordingly. the writ petation, so far as it relates to petitioners No.2 and 5. stands dismissed as withdrawn with the above- stated liberty. No order as to costs. 3. Petitioners No.1. 3, 4 and 6 are working as ^tesistant Teacher in Government Schoofs. In the course of their servjce as J- Assistant Teacher, they have obtained B.Ed./B.T.t. Certificates at their own expenses before 1-3-1999. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitionere. petitioners No.1, 3, 4 and 6 are entitled to tw©advance incremente in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashvwnt Kumar Bharadwajvs. Municipal Corporaffwt, Dufg and another^, wherein it has been hekl that the teachers, having obtained B.Ed., M.Ed., B.T.1. Certificates, at their own expenses, are covered by ttie circutar dated 24-12-1998 issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. 5. Further, in the matter of Smt. Manorams Shrivastava vs. State ofM.P. andothersi, the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Gwalior Bench, while consjdering the circular dated 1-3-19^, wherein it is provided that the Asslstant Teachers, who have acquired B.Bd. Degree at their own cost between 23-10-1964 and 7-5-1973 shaB be entitted to two advance increments, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and offw/s passed in Original Application No.1632of 1999, decided on 12-10-1999, wherein it is observed that the circular 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 to tw© advance increments. 6. It is pointed out by tearned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had fited a Spectal Leave Petition against the orders passed by th@ Tribuiial and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No.1^9 of 2000 filed against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direction to the effect that the circular dated 1-3-19^ cannot be made applicable retrospectivety, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers, who have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. Certificates before 1-3-1999. It is further substantiated by a drcular dated 17-10-2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the circular cteariy states about the decision of e Hon'ble SupremeCourt. 7. Leamed counsel for the petftionere ftirther submits tiat the facts and questionof law involved in the present case of petitfoners No.1, 3, 4 and 6 are squarely covered by the decteion of this Court in the case of Yashwar^ Kumar BAa/adway (Supra), to which tearned counsel appearing for the respondents/State fairly concedes and agrees with the averments made by learned counsel appearing for ttie petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, so fer as St relates to petitioners No.1, 3, 4 and 6, is atlowed in terms of the decision of ttiis Court in the matter of Yasljwant Kumar Bharaxlwaj (Supra). subjecl to verification of the faet as to wrtiether petitioners No.1, 3, 4 and ©hswe acquired B.Ed./B.T.I. Certificates at 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. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 2 2000 (I)M.P.LS.R. 136 Gopat