'fM^gi'trar, M. P. StatefA^m. Tribunal. | RAIPUR. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TMBUNAL. AT RAIPUR BENCH t/77?/5)^3C '-<^ i'7/U ORIGINALAPPLICATIONN6?^^-OF 2000 SMT.NEERJA TIWARI WIFE OF SHRI V.D. TIWARI LECTURER • GOVT. MULTIPURPOSE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL RAJNANDGAON M.P. VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH S^rr ^-l^at ^' '-\y ^ ^^ 2 Through Secretary, ^tegL J'"Ja--( Department of(@gReg Education Department, Mantralaya, Bh6pal(M.P.)-462004 £<? ,/ A- Commissioner of Higfter Education Department Government of M^dhya Pradesh Satpura Bhaw^rf' Bhopal (M.P^ APPLICANT/ PETITIONER NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS Details of the Application ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985 _-.._J ^ o^- ^)iji|l;®;®^@^^i ^ by Shi No. i Flled today.^- order o£ the Hon*t;le Iri.bmd on Dt» 10.7«2000 ^'&.U''^L 0..--^"=^-] fbvnsel Sor 2» GOBnissioner, Pbblio School Educatloa >rS-« 5, Urectsr, Publio Sehool Education Depar- »topA M.P, k, Joint Dlrector, Public Scluol Educatlon Durg Otfloe of the Joint a.rectsr, Durg a\'ision QurgM.P. @ovt» Hultipurpose Higher SecOndary Sctool .). */• o:^ np!F|it|(]';iicin-i:s':-ai. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W^ P. (s) No. 3307 of2005 Smt. NeeijaTiwari Petitioner Vcrsus Respondents : State of Chhattfsgarh & others Siag^e Bench: Hou'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Affiihotri. ^ Shri Sachiu Singh Rajput, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General wifh. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. O R DER (31st October, 2006) 1. The petitioner te working as Lecturer in fhe goveriuuent schools. In the course of her services as Lecturer, the petitioner has obtained B. Ed. examinatfon certificate on her own expenses before l.3.1999. Accordiag to leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, the petitioner is entifled to two advance uicrements in view of the decision of this Coiut ia fhe case of Yashwaat Kym.ar Bhaiadwai Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dure and anofher {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in fhe case of Yashwant Kuiaar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dui^ aad anofher (Supra), came to fhe conclusion that fhe teachers, who had obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. Exauunation Certificate ou fheir owu expenses, are covered by fhe circidar dated 24.12.98 issued by the State Govemment of Madhya Pradesh. Furthcr in the uiatter of Siat. Maaoraina ShrivastayaVs^ State of M.P. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Administeative Tribuaal, Gwalior Bench, while consideriag the circiilar dated 1.3.1999 whereia, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acqiiired B. Ed. degree at fheir own cost-between 23.10.1964 aad 7.5.1973 shaU be entifled to two advauce iacreinents, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kuinar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & ofhers passed ia O.A. No. 1632/99, decided ou 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed fhat the G^ circular dated 1.3.1999 caiuiot be naade appUcable retrospectively. Thus, a teacher, inay be Assistant Teacher, who has obtained B. Ed. degree- before 1.3.1999 is entttled to two advaace nictenients. It is pointed out by leamed coiinsel appeariag for the petitioners fhat the ftleu.Ste.tc of Madhya Pradesh h?d filed a Special Lcave Petition agaiast fhe orders passed by the Tribunal and fhe Hon'bte Supreme Coiirt dtenussed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 ffled against fhe order of fhe TnbunaL .Therefore, the direction to the effect fhat fhe circxilar dated 1.3.1999 caunot be niade appUcable retrospectively, passed by fhe Tribuaal, becoines fina1 and fhe saiae shall be applicabte to all fhe Assistant Teachers who have obtaiued B. Ed. exaDunatkin certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substautiated by a citcular dated 17.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the circular clearly states about the decisiou of fhe Supreine Coiut. Leamed couusel for the petitioners further submits that the facts aad question of law involved ia the present case are squarely covered by decision of thte Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Diug aad anofher (Supra), to which leamed counsel appeanag for fh.e respondents fairly coacedes and agrees with fhe avennent inade by learued counsel appearixig for fhe petitioner. Accoidiugly, the writ petitfon is allowed in terms of the order passed in. the case of Yashwant Kiunar Bharadwaj Vs. Muiucipal Corporation, Durg aad another (Supra),subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitiouer has acquiicd B. Ed. Examinatmii Certificate on her own expenses as per the circiilars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and furttier whether she has been paid two advance incrcnients or not. No order as to costs. Subhash