E g A D M I N I S T R A T I V E T R I B U N A L B E N C H R A I P U R B E F O R E T H E H O N ’ B L E S T A T E : K a s h i R a m S h r i v a s s / o L a t e s h r i B a b u l a l S h r i v a s , a s s t . t e a c h e r G o v t . M i d d l e S c h o o l , P a l a n d u x T a s s . D o n g a r g a r , D i s t t . R a j n a n d g a o n ( c . g ‘ ) A p p l i c a n t v e r s e s . 1 . T h e S t a t e G o v t . O f C h h a t t i s g a r h T h r o u g h t h e s e c r e t a r y , ‘ S c h o o l E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t , M a n t r a l a y a D a u K a l y a n s i n g h B h a w a n , ( O l d D . K . B h a w a n ) R a i p u r ( C o G . ) \ N o n - a p p l i c a n t 2 , T h e D i s t r i c t E d u c a t i o n O f f i c e r , R a j n a n d g o a n ( C . G . ) . i A P P L I C A T I O N U / S 1 9 O F T H E A D M I N I S T R A T I V E T R I B U N A L A C T 1 9 8 5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR att Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Pfctitioner Respondeuts Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W. P. (s) No. 3208 of2005 Ku. ShaUja Shrivastava Veisus The State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers W. P. (sl No. 3479 of2005 Ravindra Kuinar Sahu Versus Versus Thc State ofCUiattisgarh & ofhers W. P. (sl No. 4176 of 2005 Rreinlal Dewangan The State of Ctthattisgarh & anofher W. P. (s) No. 4301 of2005 Ram Kuinar Choubey Versus The State ofCUiattisgarh & aaother W. P. (sl No. 4308 of2QQ5 Kashi Rani Shrivas Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & another W. P. (a) No. 4343 of2005 Sbaka. Ram. Songerwa Versus State ofCIitaattisgarh fis auother W. P. fel No. 4344 of2005 Neshwar Prasad Sahu Versus The State of CJihattfsgarh & auother W. P. fsl No. 4357 of2005 Rupendra Kumar Sahu Versus Thc State of Chhattisg^rh & anofher W. P. (sl No. 4367 of 2005 Leeladhar Sahoo Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & anofher ItV Petitioner Respoudents Petitioner Respondents Pfctitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitfouer Respoudents Petitioner Respondeats Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W. P, is)J(o, 4416 of2005 Smt Aruna Reddi VCTSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & anofher W. P. (sl No. 4438 of2005 Siut Bhagwafi Vaishnava Vcrsus The State ofChhattisgarh & otfaers W. P. fs) No. 4615 of2005 Gopal Singh Kosaia Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & anothcr W. P. (s) No. 4626 of 2005 Sint. Vibha Verma Versus The State ofChhattisgarh & anotber W. P. fel No. 4659 of2005 Suresh Kumar Tiwari Versus The State ofChhattisgarh & another W. P. (s) No. 4690 of2005 Hemnaj Ladeshwar Versus TIie State ofChhattfsgarh & another W,_P.Js)No, 4696 of2005 Manik Lal Dewangan Vcrsus The Slate of CIihattfagaA & anofher W. P. (s) No. 4810 of 2005 Bramha Ji Dewangan Vcrsus Thc State ofChhattisgarh & another And W. P. fo) No. 5886 of2006 Anaar Singh Dewaagan Versus The State of Chtaattisgarh & anofher ^ Sin^le Beach: Honlate Mr, Justice Satisli K. AgnUiotei. Shri. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for tfae Petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Moortfay, Deputy Advocate Generalwith Sint. Anju Ahuja, Depuly Govenunent Advocate for thc State/respondents. ORDER (3lat0ctober, 2006) The petitkiners are worldng ^ AssMtant Teachers/Upper Division Teachers in the govenunent schools. In the coiirse oftheir services as Assistant Teachers/Upper Divisron Teachers, fhe petitioners have obtaiaed B. Ed./B.T.I. exaaunation certifeates oa their own expenses before 1.3.1999. Writ Petition (S) No.s 3208/2005, 3479/2005, 4176/2005, 4301/2005, 4308/2005, 4343/2005, 4344/2005, 4357/2005, 4367/2005, 4416/2005, 4438/2005, 4615/2005, 4626/2005, 4659/2005, 4690/2005, 4696/2005, 4810/2005 and 5886/2006 are being disposcd of by this conunon order as the facts and question oflaw iavolved ia fhese petitions are coininon. Accordiag to leamed counsel for the petitioners, thc pctitioners are entitied to two advance mcreiaents in view of fhe decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwai Vs. Mumcipal Corporation. Durg and aaofher {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwaat Kuiaar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporatk>n, Durg and anofher (Supra), caine to the conclusion fhat thc teachers, who had obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. ExaHunation Certifrcate on their own expeuses, are covered by fhe circular dated 24.12.98 issued by the State Govenunent of Madhya Pradesh. Further ia the tnatter of Smt. Maaoraina Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Adnunisteatiye Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, while considermg fhe circular datcd 1.3.1999 whcrein, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B. Ed. degree at fheir own cost belwecn 23.10.1964 aad 7.5.1973 shaU bc entifled to two advauce iucrements, reUed on dccision ia the casc of Rakesh Kumar Sbrivastava Vs. Statc of M.P. & others passed in O.A. No. ">!ltiia 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observcd fhat ttie circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be inadc applicable retoospectively. Thus, a tcacher, niay be Assistant Teacher, who has obtaiaed B. Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entifled to fwo advance mcrements. 5. It is pointed out by learaed counsel appeariag for the petitioners that fhe then State pf Madhya Pradesh had ffled a Special Leave Pfctition agamst fhe orders passed by fhe Tribuaal and the Hon'ble Supreiae Court dismissed Spccial Lcave Petitk>n No. 1999/2000 filed against the order of the TribunaL Therefore, the direction to the efect that the circular dated 1.3.1999 caanot be inade applicable retrospectively, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final and the sanie sbatl be applicabte to aB the Assistant Teachers who have obtaiaed B. Ed. examination certificate before 1.3.1999. It is further substaatiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by fhe present State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the cireular clearly states about the decision ofthe Supreme Court. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners further subinits fhat the facts aad question of law involved in fhe present case are squarety covered by decision of fhis Court in fhe caae of Yashwaat Kuinar Bharadwaj Vs. Miuucipal Corporatkin, Duig aad another (Supre^, to which leamed counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the av^nnent laade by learaed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitioiis are allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Yashwaut Kumar Bharadwq Vs. Munkapal Corporation, Diug aad another (Suprs^, subject to verification of fhe fact as to whefher the petitioners have acquiied B. Ed./B.T.I. Examination Certi&cate on their owu expeuses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and l.3.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance iacrements or not. No oider as to costs. ijbhash 8. A copy of this order be placed on record ia coiinected inatters. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge