^ 3 BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR O.A. N0. /2002 '•f-. ,)/^!-il.^/i ' APPLICANT T': NON-APPLICANT Jhangilal Humne Asstt. Teacher Primary School Bakar Kahar Distt. Kawardha VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of School Educafion D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Commissioner School Education Govt. of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. District Education Officer Distt. Kawardha ORIGINAL APPLICATION UJSIDERSECTION 19 QF THE M.P. STATE ADMLNISTRATIVE TRIBUNALACT, 1985 «*«i3E'S^^-^^£L.^......_ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitiouer Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioners Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioxier Respondcnte W. P. (s) No. 4682 of2005 : Sriram Porte Versus : State of Chhattisg^rh & others W. P. ls} No. 4681 of2005 Versus Digvijay Das Vaishnav State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. fel No. 4686 of 2005 Vcrsus tlhangilfll Humne State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers W. P. (s) No. 4680 of2005 : Kisun Rani Joshi Vcrsus : State of Chhattisgarh & ofhera W. P. is} No. 4684 of2005 : Sant Lal Markam Versus : State bfChIiattisgarh & ofhera W. P. fe) No. 4905 of 2005 Tosh Lal Patel & others Versus State of Chhatdsgarh & others W. P. is) No. 5033 of2005 : Kamludas Tondre Versus State ofChhatdsgarh & otfaera W. P. (s\ No. 5051 of 2005 LatifKhan Versus State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers W. P. fs) No. 5053 of2005 Vcraus Smt. Subharda Dongre State of Chhatdsgarh & others ^l ^N^ .-^f^ Petitioners Respondents Petitioners Respondeats PetitioDer Respondents Petitiouer Respondeiits Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Rcspondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondeiits W, P. (s\ No. 5059 of 2005 : Madhav Murari Nayak & othera Veraus : Statc of Chliattisgarii & ofha-s W. P. fel No. 5060 of 2005 Petitioufiis : Gauesh Ram Patel & ofhers Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & ofhera W. P. la} No. 5062 of2005 Subhs^h Gupta & othera Versus State of Chhattisgarh & otfafirs W. P. is) No.5113of2005 Jaiprakash Narayan Shrivastava Vcrsus ^ State of Chhattusgarh & ofhers W. P. fol No. 5114 of2005 Gitaram Mirche Versus State ofChhattisgarh & ofhera W. P. fst No. 5133 of2005 Gajanand Netaai Versus State of Chliattisgarh & others W. P. ls} No. 5134 of2005 Versus Krupendrakumar Meshram s State of Cbhattusgarh & others W. P. ls\ No. 5074 of2005 : Jagdish Prasad Sbanna Versus State of Chhattisgarh & pfhers W. P. ls} No. 5046 of2005 Versus Kriparain Pater i State of Chhatdsgarh & others W. P. fe) No. 5047 of2005 Petitiouer : Gudlian Lal Verma Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & ofbers Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W. P. (sl No. 5049 of2005 Vcrsus And Ramakaat Bhuraya 5 State of Chhatdsgarh & otiiers W. P. ls} No. 5052 ofJjOOS Versus Auaad Singh Dhurwe State ofChhattisgarh & pthers 8ing|e Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice SaU»bK. AgllUiptri. Shri Mamsh Sharna^, Advocate for the Pctitkmera. Shri Utkarah Verma, Govt Advocate for flie State/respondents. O R D ER (27th October, 2006) The petitioners are working as Ass^tant Teachers in the govemment schools. In the course of their services as Assistant Teachera, the petitioners have obtained D. Ed. cerd£k;ateson their own expenses before 1.3.1999. Learaed counsel for the petitaonere submits that the 'Basic Trammg Institute' (B.T.I.) certsSea^ haa beeii renaiaed by the oider of the State Govenunent as 'Dipk»main Education' (D.E<L) certifk;ate. The petitiouers, who have obtaiued D.Ed. certificate prior to 1.3.1999 ans entitled to fhe same reUefas is granted to fhe candidates who had obtained B.TJ./B.Ed. certificates on their own expenses as per the circuJara dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999. <^) ^H.. 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, 5062/2005, 5113/2005, 5133/2005, 5114/2005, 5134/2005, 5052/2005, 5049/2005, 5047/2005, 5046/2005 and 5074/2005 are bemg disposed ofby this coiiuuion order as the facts aad question of law involved in these petitions arc conuiion. According to leanied couasel for the petitioners, the pelitioners arc eutitled to two advance incrcments in view of the decision of fhis C6urt in fhe case of Yastiwant Kuxnar Bharadwai Vs. Miuucipal Corporation. Dure and anofher {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court ia the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dui^ and anofher (Supra), came to fhe conclusion that the teachera, who had obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. Certificate on their own expetises, are covered by fhe circular dated 24.12.98 issued by the State Govemioent of Madhya Pradesh. FurthcT in the matter of Smt. Mannrama Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and othera ( 2000 (1)M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Pradesh State Adxmnistratwe Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, while considering the circular dated l.3.1999 whereia, it is provided tfaat the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B. Ed. degnee at their own cost belweeu 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shaU be eutitkd to two advance mcrements, Belied on decision m tfae case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & ofhers passed in O.A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 whexemit is obseived fhat the circular dated 1.3.1999 canuot be made ^i»)ic^leretrospectivety. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teaefacr, who has obtamed B. Ed. degree beforc 1.3.1999 is eatitkd to two advaace mcrements. It is poiated out by learaed coui^^l <5^peapEig fpr tfaie petitionera that the then State of Madhya Pr^esb Nld filcad a Special' Leave Petition against tbe oidera passed by fhe Tiibunal and the Hon^te Supreme Court dismissed Special Leayc Petition No. 1999/2000 filed against the order of the TribunaL Thfireforc, the dircction to ;^^.i^S~-it- . (3t 1^^' 7. the effect that the circular dated. 1.3.1999 cannot be made appUcable rctrospectivefy, passed by tbe Tribunal, becomes fiiaal and the same shall he appUcable to all the Assistant Teachers who have obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. certificate beforc l.3.1999. It is ftuther substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by the present State of Madhya Pradesh wherein fhje circular clearfy states about the decision ofthe Supreme Court. Learaed counsel for the petitioaiera further submits that fhe facte and question of law involved ia ftie present case are squarefy covercd by decision of fbis Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporatk>n, Durg aad another (Si.i.pra)> to which learaed counsel appearing for the respondents fairty concedes aad agrces wifh the averment inade by fcanied counsel appearing for fhe petitioners. 8. Accordingly, in fhe event, D. Ed. certifteate holdera arc equal to B.T.I./B.Ed. certificate holdera, they are entitled to the same rclief in terms of fhe ordera passed ui the case of Yashwant Kiimar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothcr (Supr^, subject to verification offhefact as to whether the petitionere have acquired D. Ekl. Certificate on their own expenses as per fhe circuJars dated 24.12.1998 aad l.3.1999 aadfurther whether they have been paid two advance increments or not No oider asto costs. 9. A copy of fhis order be placed ou record in connected mattera. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge