SIPSiaLC DU C^£7Z5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WLP. fSI No. S'c)if& 11006 PETITIONER p$--j?/>'..- ^•(S'1/C?''' -•••'' ^^l^ y^y ...-^^' ^p'\^ ^y. '^'.^••" ^' f Gajendra Prasad Patel S/o. Shri Janmejay Patel Aged about 42 years Post-Assistant - Teacher R/o. Village -Kirari, Post Kirari ,Tahsil Dabhra District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ff^y ,•,"•&ph's JJQI ••"^•r:;;" 3 1?3".:. Vf^ ^X'^W^/ ^>.'?k>\ yy ''^eySssy^ .€} <f"' ....-^^ tftft^ /:!. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) /3. Block Education Officer Block-Dabhra District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ' - / WRIT PETITION U/A 226/277 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND 5 CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS XI-HC-78 sn^T^irR-fi* aw3n^T»*fiq> SuWiiuh 3?? -i<i<<i<i<i, »Tn^'ie,Rldlti^ CO.p-c^) SWb/GG *irani aiHicfi ^ 200 ^ 3<i3i^i <<a* (v^ai^tT) TOITWdfttTSn^T +i<)fci41-< tiitic?) fffecfl'<Ri»ii. ^ari^Tsn^T 03.11.2006 Shri Anil Mourya, Advocjite Shrj Utkarsh Verma, Ocjputy the Stote/respondents. for the Petittoners. ©overnmentAdvocote for Witti the consent of Wpa'ned counsel for tiie porties, the writ petition is hecrd 'fmaSlff. Comnwn order dictated ^) Writ Petition (S.) 5945/2006 in open Court, possed sep<irate|y. ——— Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge P.T.O. v HIGH COUKT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Respondeuts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respoudeats Petltioner Respondents Petitioner Respondeiits Petitioner Respondeats W. P. (sl No. 5945 of2006 Ptiran Lal Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (s) No. 5946 of 2006 Gajendra Prasad Patel Versus State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers W. P. (s) N0^5947 of 2006 Bhanu Rratap Singh Patel Versus State of Chhatdsgarh & others W^ P. (s) No. 5948 of 2006 Bhuvneshwar Piasad Sahu Versus State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers VLP. (sl No. 5949 of 2006 Chaad Ram Patel Versus Sfette of Chliattisgarh & others W. P. (s> No. 5950 of 2006 Keshav Prasad Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & otbers W. P. (st No. 5951 of2006 Khirsagar Nayak Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W, P. (s) No. 5952 of 2006 Raj Kuinar Pa'bE.l Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (s) No. 5953 of2006 Petitioner ; Amrit ]al Patel Versus Respoudents : State of Chhatdsgarh & ofliers 1 ^? .A Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respoudents Petitmner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitiouer Respondents Petitioner Respoudents Petitioner Respondeats Petitioner Respondents W. P. (si No. 5954 of2006 Mohan Murari Patel Versus State of ChlM.ttisgayh & ofhers W. P. (s) No. 5955 of2006 Fanish Rain Sidar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers W. P. (s) No. 5956 of2006 Rain krishana Sahu Versus State of Chliatdsgarh & others W. P. (s\ No. 5957 of2006 Prainod Kumar Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (sLNo^5958of2Q06 Rain Bihari Sahu Versus State of Chhatfegarh & ofhers W. P. (s) No. 5959 of2006 Fariaesh Patel Versus State of CIihatdsgarh & others W. P. (sl No. 5960 of2006 Smt. Tara Rao Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. la\ No.5961 of2006 Dhaiuram Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (s) No. 5962 of 2006 Ganesh Ram Patel Versus State ofChhattisgarh & others 2^ Petitiouer Respondents Petitk>ner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W. P. (s) No. 5963 of 2006 Kushal Prasad Patel Versus State of Chliatdsgarb & others W, P.JsLNo.^964 of2006 Rani Narayan Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarb & oth.era W. P.Js)No.5965of2Q06 Upendra Kum.ar Patel Vcrsus State of Chhattisgarh & othera And W. P. (sl No. 5966 of2006 Achchhe Lal Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others Sixi^e Bench; HonTsle Mr, Justice Satish K. AgaUiotri, Present: Shri Aiul Mourya, Advocate for thc Petitioners. Shri Utkarah Verma, Deputy Govermnent Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (3rdNovember, 2006) 1. The petitioners are working as Assistant Tcachers/Upper Division Teachers ia. thegovenuuent schools. In fhe course offheir services as Assistaat Teachers/Upper Division Teachers, the petitioaers have obtained B.Ed. exaiiunation certificates on their own expenses before 1.3.1999. 2. Writ Petition(8) No.s 5945/2006, 5946/2006, 5947/2006, 594S/2006, 5949/2006, 5950/2006, 5951/2006, 5952/2006, 5953/2006, 5954/2006, 5955/2006, 5956/2006, 5957/2006, 5958/2006, 5959/2006, 5960/2006, SEtel/2006, 5962/2006, 5963/2006, 5964/2006, 5%5/2006 and 5966/2006 are being disposed ofby this conuaon order as fhe facts and question oflaw iavolved iu these petitions are comxaon. Accordiag to fearued counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entifled to two advan.ee iucremeuts m view of fhe decision of ffais Court in the case of Yashwaat Kumar Bharadwai Vs. Mumcipal Corporatiou, Durs aad auoftier {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhacadwaj Vs. Miuucipal Corporation, Durg aud another (Supra), cam.e to the conclusion that fhe teachers, who had obtauied B. Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certificate on their own expeuses, are covened by the circular dated 24.12.98 issued by fhe State Goverainent of Madhya Pradesh. Ftirther ia the niatter of Smt. Mauoram.a Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. aud ofhere { 2000 (l) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Admuuistrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, while considering the circular datcd 1.3.1999 wherein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B. Ed. degree at their owu cost between 23.10.1964 aiid 7.5.1973 shaU be entitled to two advaace increinents, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & others passed in O.A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 whereia it is observed that the circular dated 1.3.1999 caanot be inade applicabk retrospectivety. Thus, a teacher, niay be Assistaut Teacher, who has obtained B.Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entifled to two advance iucreinents. It is pointed out by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners that fhe then State of Madhya Pradesh had ffled a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by fhe Tribunal and fh.e Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Pfctition No. 1999/2000 filed agauist the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direction to fhe effect that fhe circular dated 1.3.1999 caruiot be made applicabte retrospectively, passed by fhe Tribiuial, becom.es final aad the saine shaU be appUcable to atl the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B. Ed. examination certificate before l.3.1999. It is further substautiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh whereia the circular clearly states about the decision of fhe Supreiae Court ^^ 6. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioners further subnuts that the facts and question of law involved in fhe present case are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kuiuar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiiicipal Corporation, Dui^ and aaother (Supi-a), to which kamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents fairly concedes aad agrees witfa the avennent made by leamed counsel appearimg for tfae petitioners. 7. Accondiagly, the writ petitions are aUowed iu tenns of the order passed ia the case of Yashwaat Kum.ar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiucipal Corporation, Durg and auother (Supra), subject to verification of fhe fact as to whether fhe petitioners bave acqiiired B. Ekl./B.T.I. Exaaunation. Certi&cate oa their own expeuses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and fiuther whefher they have been paid two advaace iucreiuents or uot. No order as to costs. Subhash 8. A copy of this order be placed on record in coniiected naatters. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge