s' w y o mGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPDR ReviewPetitionNo. 17 of 2008 APPLICANTS Respjmdents Non-anplicants Petitioners StateofChhattisgarh &0thers. VERSUS A.N.V. Satyanarayan & Others AND THREE OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment and orderon ..93:03.2009 ~S^2-' l'( ^ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANTS Respondents Non-applicants Petitioners Rfiview PetitionNo. 17 of 2008 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Raipur (CG). 3. District Education Officer, District Durg (CG). 4. District Education Officer, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 5. ' District Education OfBcer, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1. A.N.V. Satyanarayan S/o Shri A. Appala Swamy, aged about 37 years, Lecturer C/o Shri A.R. Verma, Behind Bunkar Sangh, Santra Badi, Durg, Distoict Durg (CG). 2. Ku. Asha Tekam D/o Shri Kishan Tekam, aged about 41 years, Upper Div. Teacher, Q. No. 1 E, Street No. 27, Sector 5, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). , 3. Sarveshwar Dayal Mishra S/o late Shri B.D. Mishra, aged about 47 . years, Head Master (Initial appointment Asstt. Teacher), Govt. M.s. Shankar Nagar, Durg, District Durg (CG). 4. Smt. Padmavati Smita Rao (Before marriage Ku. Muddu Padmavati), W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Rao, aged about 36 years, Upper Div. Teacher, C-72, Priyadarshini Nagar, Risali, near Mahakaleshwar Mandir, Krishna Talkies Road, Bhilai, Dista-ict Durg (CG). 5. Mahendra Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Chunni Lal Baghel, aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Badgaon, Charbhata, Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG). r3 6. Praveen Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri R.S. Sharma, aged about 43 years, Assistant Teacher, I.R.Y. Govt. M. H.S. School, Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). (Application for review ofthe order dated 07.02.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 697/2007) Present : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/applicants. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. APPLICANTS Respondents Review Petition No. 18 pf 2008 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Education & Tribal Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipiir, Chhattisgarh. 2. Dista-ict Edycation Officer, Bemetara, District Durg (CG). VERSUS Gaind Lal Banjare, S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Banjare, aged about 40 years, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Middle School, Saladha, Block Berla, District Durg (CG). (Application for review ofthe order dated 04.03.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1430/2008) Present : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/applicants. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. Non-applicant Petitioner APPLICANTS Respondents Non-applicant Petitioner Review Petition No. 19 of 2008 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, District Durg (CG). VERSUS Smt. Rajkumari (Deshmukh) now Dilliwar, W/o Shri N.K. Dilliwar, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Kolihapuri, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District Durg (CG). ^ (Application for review ofthe order dated 10.11.2006 passed in W.P. No. 58/2006) Present : ShriKishoreBhaduri,AdditionalAdvocateGeneralforthe State/applicants. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. APPLICANTS Respondents Non-applicants Petitioners Review Petition_No. 20 of 2008 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, CKhattisgarh. 2. Director, Directorate of Public Insta-uction, Raipur (CG). 3. District Education Officer, District Durg (CG). 4. District Education Officer, District Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS 1. Tej Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Indrajeet Singh, aged about 50 years, Lecturer, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Kumhari, District Durg (CG). 2. Shambhoo Nath Pandey, S/o Late Shri Dhruwdev Pandey, aged about 49 years, Lecturer, Govt. Hr. Sec. School Kumhari, District Durg (CG). 3. Ku. Pratishtha Shukla, D/o Shri N.D. Shukla, aged about 39 years, Lecturer, Govt. Adarsh Girls Hr. Sec. School, Dwg, District Durg (CG). 4. Smt. Sandhya Chandrawanshi, W/o Shri Shashikant Chandrawanshi, aged about 43 years, Lecturer, Govt. Adarsh Girls Hr. Sec. School, Durg, District Durg (CG). 5. Smt. Gopi Rani Siriah, (before marriage Ku. Gopi Rani Nikhare) W/o Shri Pramod Kumar Siriah, aged about 47 years, Lecturer, Govt. Adarsh Girls Hr. Sec. School, Durg, District Durg (CG). 6. Smt. Aruna Shrivastava (Before marriage Ku. -^-v Aruna Saxena), W/o Shri R.K. Shrivastava, aged about 49 years, Lecturer, Govt. Adarsh Girls Hr. Sec. School, Durg, Dist Durg (CG). 7. Stnt. Brigit Bhalla (Before marriage Ku. Brigit Topo) W/o Shri Manjeet Singh Bhalla, aged about 42 years, Lecturer, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Khamhariya, Junwani, District Durg (CG). 8. Smt. Sapana Chatterjee (Before marriage Ku. Sapana Mukharjee) W/o Shri Anup Kumar Chatterjee, aged about 50 years, Lecturer, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Kumhari, Dist Durg (CG). 9. Smt. Shivani Banerjee (Before marriage Shivani Bhattacharya) W/o Shri Shushanto Banerjee, aged about 44 years, Lecturer, Govt. Bharti Hr. Sec. School, Arjunda, Gunderdehi, District Durg (CG). 10. Tikam Singh Kolhe, S/o Shri Baldev Ram Kolhe, aged about 42 years, Lecturer, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Temri, Nandghat, District Durg(CG). (Application for review ofthe order dated 01.02.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 626/2007) Present : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/applicants. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 3"lday ofMarch, 2009) All the review petitions arise fi-om thejudgment & orders involvmg the same question oflaw and as such, the same are being decided by a common order. 2) The facts, in brief, are that this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg & Another passed a judgment & order and the same was accepted by the State Govermnent and as such have attained finality. The similarly situated persons had approached this Court in various writ petitions. All 1 2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96 i—•••.•••— -^. such writ petitions were disposed of in terms of order passed in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra). The State have complied with the same also. 3) The review petitioners/State have sought review of the orders passed in W.P.(S) No.697/2007, W.P.(S) No. 1430/2008, W.P. No.58/2006 & W.P.(S) No.626/2007. The orders sought to be reviewed in these review petitions were passed on 7-2-2007, 4-3-2008, 10-11-2006 & 1-2-2007, respectively. The review petitioners (for short "the State") issued a circular on 13-3-2008 holding that the candidates who have obtained B.Ed., D.Ed. & B.T.I. certificates prior to entry into service are not entitled to two advance increments and no such order was passed in the past. 4) The State filed the review petitions after the delay of390,5,482 & 405 days, respectively. The orders are sought to be reviewed on the ground that the respondents herein (writ petitioners) have obtained the B.Ed./D.Ed. examination certificate prior to entry into service. Thus, the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions may be reviewed to the effect that the writ petitioners are not entitled to grant of two advance increments, in terms of order passed in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra). 5) Leamed counsel appearing for the State relied on a circular dated 13-9-1974 in support ofhis contention and submitted that the increments were already merged with the initial salary of Rs.90 - 170. In case of female candidates, three increments were granted and merged in the pay scale. Leamed counsel would submit that this ground could not be raised at the time of hearing, thus, the ground should be taken into consideration and the orders passed in writ petitions may be reviewed and the writ petitions may be dismissed. 6) Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) would submit that the State despite having documents and circulars did not file/ circulate the same at the time of hearing. Thus, the State could not be permitted to re-argue the matter after inordinate and unexplained delay. Leamed counsel would further submit that the State Govemment pursuant to the order of this Court has passed a circular dated 6-2-2007 directing to make payment of two advance increments to those teachers who have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. certificates between the period from 23-10-1964 to 1-3-1999 on their own expenses, during the service period. The contention of the State that the two increments were incorporated in the salary itself at the time of appointment is baseless as is evident from order dated 21-9-1993 and order dated 6-7-1993 filed by the writ petitioner in Review Petition No.17/2008 as Annexures - P/l & P/2 to the application for taking document on record dated 11-2-2009. Trained and untrained teachers were treated at par and the same scale ofpay and salary was granted to both classes. 7) I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8) In case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) the issue involved was asto whether teachers are entitled to two advance increments, if they acquire B.Ed./M.Ed./B.T.I. examination certificate on their own expenses during the period offrom 23-10-1964 to 7-5-1973. This Court having examined the said observed as under: "10. On perusal ofthe above stated circulars, it is explicit that the circular dated 1-3-1999 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (Lower Division Teachers) and not to other Teachers (Upper Division Teachers). The present petitioner is not governed by the circular dated 1-3-1999. The circular dated 24-12-1998 is still in force with modification and the circular dated 24-12-1998 would be applicable to all the Teachers including Upper Division Teachers. The circular is very clear to the effect that all the Teachers, who have obtained B.Ed., M.Ed., B.T.I. etc. trainmg certificate are entitled to two advance increments." 9) In the present case fhe writ petitioners made false representation at the time ofhearing ofwrit petitions that dispute involved in their cases was squarely covered by the decision in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra). The State also wifhout explaining the difference accepted the submission made by the writ petitioners. Accordingly, orders were passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, in the above stated circumstances. 10) On careful consideration, it appears that it was wrongly held that the aforesaid writ petitions were covered by the decision in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra). Memo dated 24-12-1998 reads as under'._ -^- "•qSTO^ 5TRT.T '•R^cT ftrwr R'HI'I H-f\v\» ^roPT ''ra^T '+ltMld—462004 <^ira?/VP7-44/96/20-4/ 'Hl41d. R'll'* 24.12.98 ^Rr. 311<j,cM. cft^> ftrwr If.V. 'qNTcT 1 1^!T:-^q?T ^ c!pr IR ^T.^., 1?T.^., AAsn^. snf^ ^firtEFT Tp<r q»^tR SffipT ^T-T ^ ^ ^ '•ff^'ET ^' | 'CTwiT VKT-\ 5TCT •qT-T.'3^RTff "lll^lcl'y ^" ~^T!R ??T.^cT.Tft. ^qfq? 9891 ^ PP'N f^-Tra; 22.7.96 c& 4R41d-1 ^' 22.10.64 tR? wft ^ RTeret" ^ ^ t^f-T ^flTqT ^ ^MT uft ^Raf sia.rar !?II'HC|?)^ c2pr TR yRrRra t T?<r 22.10.64 ^ ^re ^cr T^T' ^ oipr TR gftreroT yp<r ^TH^t' ^t ^f ^cl-I^R ^ ^ ^t^Rr 'ERT-T ^ u[1(ft t 1 liE;re^?r ^ '(iwti4ici ^ :riTT ^ trarr ai^^ii-i,<ii'i (aiRA^irf) SfcR ^Sf ^.^.TTTW-T. ^^1 ^VS\ f^ITT" 11) Thus, the issue involved in Yashwant Bharadwa (supra) was not with regard to those teachers who had obtained B.Ed./M.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. examination certificates prior to entry in the service. It is not necessary to examine asto whether prior to appointment the teachers were granted advance increments or not. The State had taken about a year in filing these review petitions, which in nonnal course should not have been condoned, as there is no sufHcient explanation for condonation ofdelay in filing the review petitions. In the present cases, the public exchequer is involved; therefore, the delay in filing the review petitions is condoned. 12) Having regard to the facts situation ofthe case and looking to the fact that at the time ofhearing ofwrit petitions the writ petitioners had not pressed any other point except that fhe issue was squarely covered by the decision in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) and the State also without explaining the difference accepted the submission made by the writ petitioners, the review petitions filed by the State are hereby allowed. -? B 13) In the result, the orders dated 7-2-2007, 4-3-2008, 10-11-2006 & 1-2-2007 passed in writ petitions i.e. W.P.(S) No.697/2007, W.P.(S) No.1430/2008, W.P. No.58/2006 & W.P.(S) No.626/2007, respectively are recalled and the said writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No order asto cost' Sd/- satishK.Agnihotri Gowri Judge