69¢ EFORE THE M P STATE ADMINISTRATNE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR T - s I: ' r pm) Wél/UJ L O A NO ’ /2@02 l \l _ i PPUCANT ‘ :' 1.} ‘ Upendra l(;umar Gupta ,Asstt Teacher Middle School Llbara Block Tamnar Dlstt Ralgarh T 1 T T . 2. ‘ DevLaIKurrey _ i I ¥ Asstt Teaoher/Superintendent ‘ ' 1 i‘ . I , r r P.M.‘l'. Ho$tel No. 2 i, I T T T T T V ‘ Chakradhfar‘nagar‘ Distt‘ Raigarh 3. Smt Anita Gabel ' - Asstt Teacher ‘ Govt GTrIsMIddle School Chakradhamagar v _ Distt. Raigarh < , V , - l VERSUS fl. . State of Chhattlsgarh r through the Secretary ,, 1 l ‘:KS Department Bhavan of AdlvaSI Vrkas . [T 2. The Commissioner 'AdivasiVikas ’ r ' VI Govt. of Chhattisgarh , 1 ‘ _D~;K:s.‘Bhavan Raipur(c.Gl.) - ~34 T sstt CommTSSIoner ' lvaSI Vlkas ‘ " *algarh R kTGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M P STATE ADMINISTRATIVF TRIRUNAI APT 1Q8’3 ‘ ‘ V f ‘TPartiCulars of the Appllcantt: t : lAs , detailed above in thebause title > Particulars of the respondents s detailed above in the cause titl A e. B t ' A T - D A _ d ff‘O l 7' i - ‘ :> ‘ 1 3 W. ‘ ’PLM No. 5061 . o’f2005 ’ 1 ‘V ’ ' Upendxa Kumar Gupta& others 4 ‘ Versus ' ‘ ‘ l‘ 1 : I StateofChhathsgarh&othem 3ingel Bern]: Hon’blc MI Jusuoc Satish K. mihotri hn Mamsh $ha1ma Advocate for the Petitioners i ' hn Utka: Narma, Govt Advocate tor the State/respondents g L ORDER g ‘ (27th October 2006) ; , V Learned counscl apPcal‘mg for the PEtmonels submits that Whllr working: aslAssmtant Teachcr the petmoners had gone on tmmmg to unpmve 1 e1r qualmuons on that own expenses and aoqmred B Ed E‘ mn&mtepmrm 13 1999‘ : leaned counsel for the peutmners the pehhoners }; arcanttle ‘to two adVance mcmments mvmwofthe declsmn of ¥th1s Court’m the case ofM Yashwant Kumar Bharadwa Vs umcl ‘nd another {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96} n the case of Yashwant Kmnar Bhamd aJ Vs Mumclpal Corpolatmn, Dmg and another {Supra) came to the conclusmn that the teachers, who had obtained B Ed. [BTI ‘ Exammahon Cerlihcate on thexrown expenses ale covered by the ’ cucular dated 24 12.98 (Annexum P/7) Issued by the sate Govemment of Madhya Pradesh I Further 1n the matter of Smt. Manorama Shnvastava Vs State of K MP and othexs g 2000 (1) MPLSR 136}the Madhya Pmdcsh ‘ r ‘State Admlmstrahve ’I‘nbunal, Gwahor Bench whde conshenng * the cueular dated 1 3 1999 whetem, 1t ls prowded that the \ssxstant Teachers who have acqnned B Ed degxee at their own ost between 23 10 1964 and 75 1973 shall be enhtkd to two - dvance mcxements rehed on declswn 1n the case of Ralaesh umar Shuvastava Vs State of M P & others passed m 0 A No ’5 L ’jc a ,{ L632l99 decnied on 12 10 1999 wherem 1t ls obsexved that the V S S {it 5 M a ”I ‘ I I i 1.3. 1999 cannpt be made applicable retmspeén'vely. hus, a! % £ealchcr, t ‘ méy be Assistant 4 9 _ Teaclier, , wgho E has obEined ‘ .Ed. <§e'g;‘ee‘ befom 1.3.1999 ls 'entitled fzo two advance r State of Madhya Praxfesh had mad} a Special Leave eu‘h'on _, the oldéIs passed by the. Tribunal§and , i the 'Hon’bE upreme Court dismissed Specialibeave Petition;No. 1999/2000 i ~ agahgst§ihe ordcf of the 'l‘riBunal. ’I‘hcrefom, the dimcu'on to :me emact that the cimular dated 1.3.1999 can ot be made I :applicablejreti‘xbspectivel passed by the Tribunal, becomes $131 ndqthe shall bea‘pplicable to ail the Assistant 'i‘eachcls whn - S N j y, ’ a ave B.Ed./B.T.L examinah'on cerh'ka'te befole s ‘ e 11110200? ‘ ijued is mar by the substantiated plesent State by of. a Madhya éimnar Pladesh dated r %herein til dearly states about the decision of the ’ ration. in the Ithewxitpetitionisalrlowedintemsofthemiier Durg class and of Yash'wam another (Supra), Kmar Bhamawaj subject tokverih‘cation Vs. Municipal of fact as tn ‘wjhether the petitionels have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I.' Certiiicgte‘ on their own expenses and iintherV' he: they have been paid two advance increments or not. No foxder as to costs. Sd/f T _ B I P thatthc .h ‘ t