S'' BEFORE THE HON&BLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBCTNAL BENOi R&IPUR, C33HATTISG&RH _ . ~~Z^7?/y1^^5M^ Onginal Applicat.l.on No. M 7 /2002 li l' .{;. 1. Manoj Kumar Madhariya Soa gf Shri Alakfa Raa Madharl.ya, Assistaat Teacher, Posted a?t Middle Sclaoo.l ®HAfe3-.-> Block Bhamdba, District Durg. Ctlhat.tisgarh. 2. Hareaara Kumar Banchor, Son b£ Yogeadra Kumar Bancbor , Assistant Teacher. Posted at . Middle Sehool Birnuda. Bloek Etiamdha, District Eur*g (Chhattisgarb) ®-• Versus \. 1. State ef Chhattisgarh, Through .Secretary, School Education ©epartrnent, Mantralaya, O.K.S.Bhawaa, fiaip.ir, Chhatt.I.sgarb. AppJ.tcants :1 2. Director, - Publie lasfcructioti, Peas.ton Bada, ftaipur (chhattisgarh) 3. District iSducatioa Officer, District Darg (e.G.) t.u.i*i^^,i, Ifon-Applieaats :8 02 ;8 APPLICATrON OHBER SECTION 19 OF STATE ABMINISTRATrVE TRIB-JSA& ACT 1985 -E3—mTTT^—•& T<T-if 1-/TI a •(tTrp_c? "^- ^ ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATSSH K. AGNJHOTR3. J. Petitioner Respondents WRST PETJTiON (S.) N0.4130 OF 2005 Gopesh Kumar Verma versus The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another Petltioner WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.4517 OF 2005 Ramanuj Prasad Shrivas versys Respondents : State o? Chhattisgarh and others Petitioners WRIT PETiTION (S.i N0.4677 OF 2005 Basant Ra] Yadav and another versus Respondente : Sfcate of Chhattisgarh and others Petltioners Respondents WRST PETITSON (S.) N0.4705 OF 2005 Vljay Narayan Shrivastava and another versus State of Chhattlsgarh andothers Petitioners WRST PETITSON {S.) N0.4408 OF 2005 Domar Singh Gurupanch and others versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others ^-^», Petltioners Respondents WRST PETITION (S.) N0.4409 OF 2005 Shyam Singh and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Petjtioners WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.4448 OF 2005 Rajendra Kumar Prajapati and others versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others WRJT PETSTSON fS.) N0.4490 OF 2005 Petltioners Manoj Kumar Madhariya and another versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitjoner Respondents WRiT PETiTION (S.) N0.4443 OF 2005 Chunni Lal Sharma versys The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another Petitioner RespondQnts WRST PETITION (S.l N0.4444 OF 2005 Kanahayaiai Hirwani versus The State Govt. of Chhattlsgarh and another Petltioner WRST PETITSON (S.) N0.4230 OF 2005 Smt. Bedbal Thakur versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner WRiT PETJTION (S.J N0.4231 OF 2005 Rammilan Sinha versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner WR!T PETSTION (S.) N0.4233 OF 2005 Raj Kumar Ramteke versys Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others PQtitioner WRiT PETITSON (S.i N0.4235 OF 2005 Krishna Ram Thakur versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner WR!T PETSTION (S.1 N0.4236 OF 2005 Bhikham Singh Sinha versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioners WRST PETITION (S.) N0.4074 OF 2005 Dinesh Kumar Nag and others versus Resoondents : State of Chhattlsgarh and another Present : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Anupam Dubey, Mr. Rakesh Anthony and Mr. Kuna! Das, counse! for the petitioner(s). Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Sunita Jain, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondents. QRDER (Passed on 15th Dayofbecember, 2006) The petitioners are working as Lecturer/Head Master/ Head Mistress/Upper Division Teacher/Assistant Teacher In Government Schools/School Education Departmenf. In the cburse of their services as Lecturer/Head Master/Head Mistress/Upper Divislon Teacher/Assistant Teacher, the petitioners have obtained B.Ed./B.T.i./D.Ed. Certificates atthelrown expenses before 1-3-1999. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the 'Baslc Training Institute' (B.TJ.) Certificate has been renamed by the order of the State Government as 'Diploma in Educatlon' (D.Ed.) Certiflcate. The petitioners, who have obtained D.Ed. Certiiicate prior to 1-3-a1999, are entitied to the same relief as is granted to the candidates who had obtained B.Ed./B.T.i. Certificates on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3-1999. 3. Learned Dsputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the ilght of the ietter dated 12-12- 2006, sent by the Director, Public Instructlons, CS-fhattisgarh, Raipur to Deputy Advocate Generai. Office of Advocate Generai, Bliaspur. annexing msmo dated 28-1-1995, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bhopai and the prospectus of Diploma In Education Examination, the nomenclature of the Basic Training Institute, i.e., B.TJ. has been changed and renamed as Diploma in Education, i.e.. D.Ed. Leamed Deputy Advocate Generai also referred the drcular dated 24-12-1998, issued by the Schooi Educatlon Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, BhopaS, aSlowlng two increments to the Teachers, who have obtained B,Ed./?^i.Ed./BTJ. Certlficates. 4. The present bateh of wrlt petltions are being dlsposed of by this common order as the facts and question of iaw invoived in these petitions are common. 5. According to ieamed counsel for the petitioners, the petltioners are entitled to two advance increments m vlew of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumsr Bharadwaj vs» Munlcipal Corporation, Durg and another^, wherein it has been heid that the Teachers, having obtained B.Ed., M.Ed., B.T.I. Certificates, at t-... their own expenses, are covered by the circuiar dated 24-12-1998 issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. 6. Further, in the matter of Smt. Manorama Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and others , the Madhya Pradesh Adminjstrative TribunaI,GwaJior Bench, while considering the cjrcular dated 1-3-1999, wherein it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B.Ed. Degree at their own cost between 23-10-1964 and 7-5-1973 sha!! be entitled to two advance Increments, relied on decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and others passed in Originai Application No.1632 of 1999, decided on 12-10-1999, wherein it is obsQi-ved that the clrcular dated 1-3-1999 cannot be made applicabie retrospectiveiy. Thus, a Teacher, may be Assjstant Teacher, who has obtained B.Ed. Degree before 1-3-1999 is entitied to two advance increments. 7. !t is pointed out by iearned counse! appearing for the petitioners that the then State of Madhya Pradesh had fiied a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Tribuna! and the Hon'bSe Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No.1999 of 2000 fiied against the order of the Tribunai. Therefore, the direction to the effect that the circular dated 1-3-1999 cannot be made appiicabie retrospectiveiy, passed by the Tribunal, becomes final and the same shail be appiicable to al! the Assistant Teachers, vyrho have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. Certjflcates before 1-3-1999. It is further substantiated by a clrcuiar dated 17-10-2003 issued by the present Stats of Madhya Pradesh. wherein the drcular cieariy states aboutthe dedsion of the Hon'bte Supreme Court. ^ 8. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners further submitthat the facts and question of law invoived in the present cases are squareiy covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), to which learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents falriy concedes and agrees with the averments made by iearned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 9. in the event, the D.Ed. Certificate hoiders are equal to the B.T.I. Certificate holders, they are entitled to the same relief as is granted to the candidates who had obtained B.Ed./B.T.S. Certifscates on their own expenses as per the circulars dated 24-12-1998 and 1-3- 19S9, in terms of the orders passed in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra). 10. Accordingly. the v^rit petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court sn the matter of YBshwant Kumar Bharadwaj (Supra), subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitloners have acquired B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. Certificates at their own expenses as per the circuiars 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. 11. A copy of this order be placed cn the record of the connected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 200S (II) MPJR-CG 96 2 2000 (1)M.P.LS.R. 136 Gopal