BEFORE THE MP. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR i T § WW9) WWW“ t V o.A‘ No. /2002 x I v ORKlGiNAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE MP. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 1. Pzarticulars of the Applicant: As detailed above in the cause title. 2. Particulars of the resgondents : As detailed above in the cause title. 3. Particulars of order againstwhich original application is beinq made f i i) The instant petition has not been filed against any particular order ofthe non-applicants but has been filed against the act of the non- l l l l \ l E/L Petiu'oner ‘ Respondchts Petitioner Respondents - Petiu'dncr ‘ Respondents \ Petitioner ‘ Respondants ‘ Peh'tioner j . Respondents Petitionem ‘ Respbndents N» ‘ ‘; L' Peu'n‘oner x I ‘ ReSPOIldents \ - " ‘ v J i 5 . Petiu'oncr Respondents Peh'tioner' Respondcnts .. ~ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. s No.'4682 of2005 Sriram Porte Vexsus State of Chhath'qgérh & others W. P. [s] _No. 4681 of 2005 Digvijay Das Vaishnav Versus Statc of Chhatfisgarh 8s others W. P.‘ (s! No. 4686 of 2005 Jhangilal Hunmc Vcxsus 3 Stats of Chhétlisgarh 8n others W. P. [sl No. 4680 of 2005 f Kiwn Ram Joshi Versus State of Chhatn'sgarh 8n others W. P. {8l No. 4684 of 2005 . Sent Lal Markam Versus ‘ Stfte of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (s! No. 4905 of2005 Tosh Lal Patem othérs Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. (s! No. 5033 of2005 . Kamludas Tondle Versus State of Chhatu‘sgarh & others W. P. (SI No. 5051 of 2005 Latif Khan Versus State of Chhattisgarh & othels W. P. {sir No. 5053 of 2005 .' Smt. Subhalda Dongle ~ Versus sew of chhamsgarh 3a omen /’ ® w. P. (s) No. 5059 of 2005 Petitioners : Madhav Murari Nayak & others » Vexsus Respondents State of Chhattisgaxl} 8s ofhms W. P. (s) No. 5060 of 2005 Petih‘oncrs : Gamwh Ram Patel as othrrs i Versus Respondents Statc of Chhattisgarh 8n oEhers ‘ w. P. (s) No. 5062 of 2005 Petitioners : Subhash Gupta & others Vcxsus , Respondents State of Chhatlisgarh & others L w. P. (s) No. 5113 of 2005 Petitioner Jaiprakash Narayan Shrivastava ‘ . Versus Respondents _ : State of Chhattisgarh 0a others W.‘ P. ts! No. 5114 of2005 ‘ Petitionef Gitamm Mimhe Versus ‘ ~- Respondents ~- ‘ : State of Chhattisgarh 65 others . w. P. (s1 No. 5133 of 2005 Petitioner Gajanand Netam Versus Respondents A : State ofChhattisgarh 85 others w. P. (s) No. 5134 of 2005 ‘ 1 Petitioner Krupendlakumar Meshmm Versus ' Respondents : State of Chhath'sgarh 8s others W. P. (s! No. 5074 of 2005 Peh'tioner : Jagdish Plasad Shanna Versus , ' Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others ' w. P. (s) No. 5046 of 2005 Petitioner v: Kriparam Pater , Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh &- others /3/ . 3f Sm Bench: Hon’blc Mr. Jusu'cew K. WEI. ‘ Shn Mamsh Shanna, Advocate for the Pennoners Shn Utkamh Velma, Govt Advocate for th: State/respondents ORDER (27th October, 2006) The petitioners are working as Assistant Te'achem ‘in the government schools, In the course of their-services. as Assistant Teachers, the petih'oners have obtaind’i D. Ed. cerh'hchtes on their own expenses befoxe 1.3.1999. Learned dounsel for the petitioners submits that the ‘Bmic Trammg Inshmte‘ (BTI) certlneate has been renamed by the onler of the State Government as 'Dlploma 1n Educatlon (D Ed.) cemhcate The petmoners, who have obtamed D.Ed. cermicate prior to 1.3.1999 axe entitled to the same reliefas is gianted. to the candidates who had obtained B.T.I./B.Ed. cerljncates onvtheir own expenses as per the circulaxs dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3. 1999. W. P. js) No. 5047 of 2005 Petitioner ' V : Girdhari Lal Verma ' Versus ‘ Respondents : State of Chhaftisgarh & others W. P.‘ (s) No. 5049 of 2005 Petitioner : Ramakant Bhuraya Versus . . Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8n othem And W. P. Isl No. 5052 of QOOS Petitioner : Amnd Singh Dhmwe Versus . Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others ‘ ”mm Writ Petition -(S) No.s 4682/2005, 4681/2005, 4686/2005, 4680/2005. 4684/2005, 4905/2005, 5033/2005, 5051/2005, 5053/2005, 5059/2005, 5060/2005, 5052/2005, 5113/2005. 5133/2005, 5114/2005, 5134/2005, 5052/2005, 5049/2005, 5047/2005, 5045/2005 and 5074/2005 am being disposed ofby this c0n1mon Older as the facts and questbn of law involved in these petitions axe common. Accordmg to lcamed counsel for the peunonem, the petmoncxs are entn‘led to two advance mommcnts m wcw of the dcclsmn of thls COmt m the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwa} Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another {2006 (ll) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), came to the conclusion that the teachers, who had obtained B. Ed.[B.’I‘.I. Certincatc on their own expenses, are covered by the cimular damd,'24.12.98 issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Further in the matter of Smt.’ Manorama Shrivagtava Vs. State of Mp. and othem g 2000 ('1) m.P.L.s.R. 136 } the Madhya Pmdesh State Adminjsuauvc 'm'buna'l, Gwalior Bench while oonsidening he Circular dated 13 1999 wherein, 1t is pmvnied that the AsSistant Teaches who have acquired B Ed degree at their own cost between 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shall be enhtled to two advanw incmments mini on decision in the case of Rakesh umarShnvastavaVs StateofMP &othempassedlnOA No 1632/99 deculed on 12 10 1999 whetrln 1t is observed that the t cucular dated 1 3 1999 cannot be made apnhcable mmspecuvely. l , Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teaeeer, who has obtained B. Ed. degee before 1.3.1999 is enn'tled to two advanre increments. 6. L It is pointed out by leamed com/8e] agpeaxjng for the peu'tiOnem \ that the men State or Madhya Pmoesh had med a Special Leave Pehtmn against the oniets passed by theTnbunal and the Hon’ble Supleme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition/No 199912000 died against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the dnecnon to t K %@ the c bct that the cucuJar dated 1 3 1999 cannot be made apphcable rctmspccuvcly, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final ' and the same shall be applicable to all the Assastant Tearhexs who have obtamed B Ed [B TI cewatc befom 1 3 1999 It 1s furthsr substanuamd by a cncular dated 17 10 Z003 lssued by the gplesent Stat? of Madhya Pradesh whcwm thc Circular clearly states abohti the decisipn of the Supmme Court. beamed counsel for the petitioners further submits that the facts and question of law involved m the present ease are squarely c‘overetl by deckion of this Court. in the ease of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supia). to Whirh learned counsel appearing for the respondents Eirly concedes and agees with the averment made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, in the event’ D. Ed. cern‘n‘cate‘ holders axe equal to ‘B.’I‘.I./B.Ed. certihcate holders, they are entitled to the same relief in terms of the orders passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhamdwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another (Supra), sueject to vmtimtion onus fact as to whether the petitionas have acquired D. Ed. Certihcate. on their own expenses as per the gunman dated 24.12.1998 and, 1.3.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance increments or not. No order as to costs. . A copy of this order be placed on record in connected matters. . Sd/- . / e—u saush K. Asmlwm ‘ 1 \ e 1‘ Judge . I’