cmmxaama AT mLasPua (cg) Lap/Vat 2.9 2 IPJ’WZN Dmesh Kumar Agmval, ,.aged_36‘.:years,alo late Shri mtuk Kriakma Agrawal, VUpper Division Teacher. Mahatma Gangmi 11.1.3. scaem. Dunc: (c.G.). V” " , P P'mwg3 R ‘ N‘o; ”unuh ”V S i g.\a.w~r.. ‘ M1”) .u-mo V. _ , ., dmw” V... V ’ R§Spondén§$é 1. mmicipal Carporationg; mg. ‘ Through : Cgmiasionar. “mi-eiml m L ..... Corp amtinn, mrg. , .Prinzcwa 15 x f L , magma. Gandhi ms. ,sehool, K mm. ~ ’ Deputy Director or Education, ‘ - DURG. A?) L #1:) . _< €fk¢ ckmy sec'r25i/cy:§,u@£¢ifqw), - w ( $4M a 0K5 M far #mbu QHAwAw) WP 013M AH>U 2V§y Lé ALbfgL Writ petition Unaer Article 226/227 OF the Constitution gm” f kdia. WW 1m? / _ . HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR W, P. No. 242 of 2002 Petitioner : Dinesh Kumar Agrawal Versus Respondents : Municipal Coxporation, Durg 65 others Singe Bench: Hon’blc Mr. Justicc satish K. Aalhotri. ',sr’ Shri Ajay Shn’vastava, Advocate for the pen'tioner. a‘g Miss Shannila Singhai, Advocate for the nespondent No. 1. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3. O R D E R ( Passed on this 28th day of February, 2007) 1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the respondent No.2 School on 9.9. 1987. The petitioner obtained B. Ed. Examination certincate in the year 1986, on his m DXPDDSBS. OL being a teacher is entitled to two advance increments in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kama: Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg and another {2006 (II) MPJR—CG 96}; This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed. /B.'I‘.I. Examination Certificate on their own expenses, are covered by the circular dated 24.12.98 (Armature Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, Pl 7) issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. \ "‘RV I Further in the matter of Smt. Manorama shrimtava Vs. Stue or M.P. and othexs { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } thc Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, While considering the éimular dated 1.3.1999 WhexBin, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. degme at their own cost between 23. 10. 1964 and 7.5. i973 shat! be entitled to two advance increments, relied on decision in the case of Rakes]: Kumar shrivastava Vs. State of MJ’. as owe passed in O.A.No. 1632/99, decided on 12. 10. 1999 Wherem it is observed that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Thus, a teacher, may be Aesistant Teacher, who has obtained B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entitled ,to two advance increments. 4. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had tiled a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 filed against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direction to the edect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot’be made applicable retrospectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes iinal and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B.Ed./B.T.l. examination certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh 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 squarely i ‘ ,’ ¥\1 p m”a? v .‘ ‘ Bharadwai Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg and another (Supxa), to which learned counsel appealing for the respondents ‘ fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by leamed ‘ counsel appearing for the petitioner. In regard to the second prayer of the petitioner that the petitioner the legal remedy, as available under the law. Accordingly, the Wn't petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kama: Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation. Burg and another (Supra), subject to verihcation of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired B. Ed. prayer for promotion, the petitioner is glanted aforestated liberty. No order as to costs. . Scu- . a satish 1c Wm A ’ Judge / 1