@ @ IN THE MoP. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BHVCH AT RAIPUR wwy 503 5/0) ‘ BETWEHQ :wT. PURNIMA THAKUR AGE - 4O YEARS WIFE OF SHRI N.S.THAKUR P08T$ AS ASSISTANT TEAG-IER AT - GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, BANBARAD , BLOG< EUCATIGV -DHAMDHA DISTRICT — nuae(c.e.) Mo BANBARANAHMARA) DISTRICT - DURG(C.G.) APPLICANT VERSUS RE$0NDEVTS : 1. STATE OF CHI-IATTISGARH THROUGHJ THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATIW DET. D «K .S . BHAWAN , RAIPUR 2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DURG(C.G.) 3. BLOCK awe/max: OFFICER EnucArxow BLOCK - nHAMDHA nxsmICT - was(c.e.) DETAILS OP APPLICATIW .5,An ilf HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (s) No. 5136 of 2005 Smt. Purm'ma Thakur Vcxsus ‘ Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others single xench: Hon'blg Mr. Jusiicc antxsh K. Agnihom. Shn‘ V.. Decpak Rao, Advocatc for the Pctitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Govt. Advocate for the State] respondents. Petitioner O R D E R (3 1st October, 2006) 1. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in the government schools. in the course of her services as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner has obtained B. Ed. examination certincate on her own expenses before 1.3. 1999. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to mo advance inelements in view of the decision 'of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhaladwaj Vs. Municigal Corporation, Durg and another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This .Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg and another (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. Examination Cern‘ncate on their own expenses, are covered by the circular dated 24.12.98 issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. 3. Further in the matter of Smt. Manomma Shnvastava Vs. State of MP. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.s.R. 136 } the Madhya Piadesh . State Administiaeve Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, whit» considering i the circular dated 1.3.1999 wherein, it is pmvided that thas‘ Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B. Ed. degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall be entitled to two advance increments, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. 85 others passed in O.A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed that the 9/2) circular dawd 1.3. 1999 cannot be made applicable mtrospectively. Thus, a teacher, may he Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B. Ed. deglee befom 1.3.1999 is entitled to two advance incmments. 4. It is pointed out by leamed counsel appealing for the peu'tioners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had nled a Special leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tn'bnnal and the Hon’ble Supleme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 Eed against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the direch'on to the edect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made applicable IetrOSpectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final and the same shall be applicable to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B. Ed. examination cerlihcate befom 1.3.1999. lt is further substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by the plesent State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the circular clearly states about the decision of the Supreme Ccult. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the facts and question of law involved in the present case are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Knmar Bhaxadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Duxg and another (Supra), to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the averment made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the wn't petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal ‘4 Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), subject to veriiication of the fact as to whether the petitioner has acquired B. Ed. Examination Certiticate on her own expenses as per the circulars dated 24. 12.1998 and 1.3. 1999 and further whether she has been paid two advance increments or not. ‘No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ’l Subhash