IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PMNCIPAL BENCH ATJABALPUR O.A.NO./35^ ^l~^ OF 200Q APPLICANTS: RESPONDENTS: :l;^f 4. s. Subhash Chandra Sharma, S/o £h>u kRirARThi wrtiSbssma, Worldng as Lecturer in Govemment Higher Secondary School, Mahapalli, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. Aail Kumar Namdeo, S/o Slui TAGESH^R/)RAS/!3l Namdec, Working as Lecturer in Govemment Higher Secondary School, Mahapalli, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, S/oShri QovEfi.s/vAAf Shanna, Working as Upper Division Teacher, Govemment Higher Secondary School, Mahapalli, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. Versus ' State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: The Secretary, Department/Ministry of School Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Commissioner/Director, Public Instmctions, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopla. Additional Director (Education)/Chief Bxecutive Officer, District Panchayat, Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. DistrictEducation Officer, Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. Principal, Govemment Higher Secondary School, Mahapalli, Post Office Loiiig, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. APPLICATION CNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATTVE ^ ' . TMBUNALS ACT !ia ^-_^-J._. ''•"'ifwf'SStR^,:.^ ii': I.B;-_:;:l:213»,tfe HIGHCQURTOPCHHATnSGARHATBiLASPUR Ptetitioners W. P. (s) Np, 2007 pf2005 Subhash Chaadra Shanaa and otfacrs Versus Respondents : Slate of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhatttegarh) &ofhers Siagle Bench: HonTate Mr. Justice Satteh K. AgaUttttri. Shri Rajendra Trq^ttfai, Advocate for Ihe Petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Gencralwlth Smt. Aaju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (31st October, 2006) The petitioneis are working as Lecturers/Upper Division Teachers in fbe govetiunent schools. In fhe course of fheir services as Lecturers/Upper Divfaion Teachers, tlie petitioners have obtaiaed B.Ed. exaaunation certificates on fheir own expeiises before 1.3,1999. c Tfae petitioners have acquired B.Ed. quatt&cations before 1.3.1999 m fhe year 1990-91, 1993-94 and 1995-96 respectivety. The petitioners were iaitiaBy granted two advaxuse increineats by order dated '22.5.1994, but the saine was wifhdrawn by order dated 8.9.1994 (Aimcxure A-6). Accordiag to leamed couascl for tfae petitioners, the petitioners are entitlcd to two advance incremeats ia view of (he decision of fhis Court in the case of Yashwaut Kumar Bharadwai Vs, Mumcipal Corporation, Dvxs. and anofher {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Coiut in the case of Yasfawant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Coiporatkin, DTU^ and another (Supra), came to the conchisioa that the teachers, who had obtauied B. Ed./B.T.I. Examiaation CertL&catc on fheir own expcnses, are covered by tfae circular dated 24.12.98 (Aiuaexure A-10) issued by the State Goverameat of Madhya Pradesh. :.. .3' \ 4. Furftier in fhe niatter of Sxnt. ManoTaaaa. Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and othcrs { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } fhe Madhya Pradesh State AdministBative Tribuxial, Gwalior Bench, wfaile consideriag the circular dated 1.3.1999 whereia, it is provided that the Assistant Teachers, who have acquired B. Ed. degree at their own cost betwecn 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shaU be entitled to two advance increxncnts, relied on decision in the casc of Rakesh Kumar Shnvastava Vs. State ofM.P. & others passed iu O.A. No. 1632/99, decided on 12.10.1999 wherein it is observed fhat the circular dated 1.3.1999 caanot be made appUcable retrospectivefy. Thus, a teacher niay be Assistent Teacher, who has obtaiaed B. Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entifled to two advaiux increinents. 5. It is pointed out by teamed counsel appearing for the pctitk>ners fhat the then State of Madhya F>ralesh had ffled a Special Leave Ptetition ayaiast thc orders passed by thc Tribunal aiid thc Hoa'ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No. 1999/2000 filed ayednst fbe order of tbe TribunaL Therefore, the directfon to fhe eflfect that fhe circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be inade appUcable retrospcctivety, passed by the Tribunal, be(»mesfiaal and the same shall be appMcable to aU fhc Assistaat Teachers who have obtained B. Ed./B.T.I. escamination certificate bcfore 1.3.1999. It is further substantiated by a circular dated 17.10.2cx)3 issued by fhe preseat Stete of Madhya Praulesh whereia the circular clearly states about the decision of the Supreme Court. 6. Leamed counsel for fhe petitfoners further submits that the facts and question of law involved io. the prescnt case is squarefy covercd by decision of this Court ia the case of Yashwaat Kunaar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Dzu^; and another (Supr^, to which leamed counscl appearmg for tfae respondents fairly concedes and agrees wifh the avennent inade by kamed coiuasel appearu^ for the petittoners. 7. Accorduigfy, the writ petition is aBowed in terms of tfae order passed ia the casc of Yashwant Kiimar Bharadwaj Vs. Munjcipal Corporation, Ovrg and anotfaer (Supr^, subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioners have acqiured B. Ed. Bxaininatioa Certificate on fheir own expcnses as per the circiriars dated 24.12.1998 and l.3.1999 and furfher whether they have been paid two advaace increinents or not. No order as to costs. — Satish K. Agnihotri i-H; p niT