$E§Q§ix§E $Ei€we V C f S ‘ é ? % IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH / AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION lSl No. 5‘79/ [2006 PETITIONERS :1) Nandkumar Das Vaishnav S/o. Shri /' Sukhdev Das Vaishnav, aged about 41 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School (boys) ‘Lormi, Block Lormi District Bilaspur (C.G.). Chhedilal Patre, S/o. Shri Kunjram/ Patre, aged about 45 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Hadgaon, ' Block Lormi L District Bilaspur (C.G.). Nandlgumar Tivvari, S/o. Shri Hagru/ . Prasad Tiwari, aged aboiit 52 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Dholgi, Block Lormi District Bilaspur (C.G.). :4) Jagendra Prasad Kashyap, S/o Shri Videshiram Kashyap, aged about 46 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Chhirhutti, Block Lormi District Bilaspur (C.G.). / :5) Gautam Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri/ Faguram Sahu, aged abo‘ut 42 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Golhapara, Block Lormi District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESlioimENTs :1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through/ Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) :2) District Education Officer Bilaspur (C.G.) :3) Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETIION UNbER ARTICLES 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / / 33x HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (s) No. 5981 of 2006 Petitioners; : Nandkumar Das Vaishnav & others Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh 61, others Single Bench: Hon’bk Mr. Jusu'ce Satish K. Agnihotri. Mrs. Hamida Siddiqua, Advocate for fhe Petitioners. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Pand lawyar for the State] respondents. O R D E R (6‘11 November, 2006) The peiitioners are working aS Assistant Teachers in the government school. in the course of their services as Assistant Teachers, the petitioners have obtained B. Ed. examination certificate on their own expenses before 1.3. 1999. According to leanied counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners ale entitled to two advance increments in View of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg? and another {2006 (H) MPJR-CG 96}. ‘ This Court in the case. of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dnrg and another (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed. ]B.T.I. Examination Certificate on their own expenses, are covered by the circular dated 24.12.98 (Annexure Pf 1) issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Further in the matter of Smt. Manorama Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others g 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya. Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, While considering the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is pmvided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall be entitledto two advance increments, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh ”$4 Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State. of MP. 65 others passed ixl O.A,No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed that tha cimular dataci 1.3. 1999 cannot be made applicable lefrospectivety. Th113, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entitled to two advance inCIements. It is pointed out by learned counsel appeating for the petitioner that the then State. of Madhya Pradesh had filed a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999f2000 filed against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the (Election to the etfect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes flnal and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers Who have obtained B.Ed. examination certificate before 1.3.1999. lt is further substantiated by a circular dated 17. 10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pladesh wherein the circular clearly states about the decision of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the facts and question of law involved in the present case are squaxely covered by dec1s1on of this Court 1n the case of Yashwant Kumai Bharadwag Vs Mun1c1pal Corpmation Burg and anothei (Supra) to which leanied counsel appearing fox the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ peb’tion is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Comoration, Durg and another (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acquired B. Ed. Examination Certilicate on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24.12. 1998 1.3.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. f Bablu ‘ l Sdl— ‘J Satish K.Agnihotri ‘ Judge l