:;^^ 3 ^ BEFORE THE KONtBLE STATS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BEN'CH RAIPUS S.A^No^ /2001, C^^UQ^1- Applicant Premlal De^^angan, aged 57 ysiaz's? S/o Shri Laktenlal DQttan^n, Asstt^Teach,;'!-, Middle School VICFIAm3UR Post- Gatap ar 'IfalaS via Ghusika Distt< Ra.jnandgaon - Plu. 491444 (C.G.). VEBSUS. Non-applicants ~1« The State Govt,of Chhattisgrarh, through the Secrotary^ Sohool Education- Depart^ent^ ^ntmla^- Iteu Kal37.s,.nsingh Bhavan, Old D»K«Bhawan, RAIPUR (C.G.), 2e Ths District Education Officer, RAJKATTrcAON (CG). APPLICAIION U/S 19 OF 'IHS AQMZHlSIRA3'IVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985. l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (a) No. 3208 of2005 Ptetitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitk)ner Respondents Ptetitioner Respondeuts Petitioner Respondents Pfetitioner Rcspondents Petitk>ner Resppndeiits Ptetitioner Respondents Petitioner Rcspondcnts : Ku. Shaflja Shrivastava Veraus : The State of Chhattisgarh & othera W. P. fol No. 3479 of2005 Raviadra Kumar Sahu Versus Thc State ofChliattisgarh & others W. P. fsl No. 4176 of 2005 VCTSUS Versus Premlal Dewangaa : The State of Chliattisgarh & another W. P. (st No. ^301 of2005 Ram Kumar Choubey Versus : The State ofChliattisgarh & another W. P. (9) No. 4308 of2005 : Kashi Ram Shrivas Versus- : The State of Chhattisgarh & another W. P. fe» No. 4343 of2005 / Shaka Ram. Songerwa Versus ; Statc of Chhattisgarh & smothcr W. P. (sl No. 4344 of 2005 ; Neshwar Prasad Sahu Versus : Thc State of Chhat(asgarh & another W. P. fel No. 4357 of2005 Rupendra Kumar Sahu Versus : Thc State of Chhattisgarh & anofher W. P. fsl No. 4367 of2005 Leelalhar Sahoo Vcraus The State ofChhattisgarh & anothw ^i') Pfetitioncr Respondents Ptetitioner Respondents Pfetitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Ptetitiouer Respondents Ptetitioner Respondents Ptetitfoner Rcspondcnts Petitioner Rcspondents Ptetitioner Rcspondents W. P. (sl No. 4416 of 2005 Smt. Aruna Reddi , VCTSUS : The State of Chhattisgarh & aaother W. P. fe) No. 4438 of2005 : Smt Bhagwati Vaishnava Vcrsus The State of Chhattfsgarh & bfhera W. P. ts} No. 4615 of2005 : Gopal Singh Kosuna Vcrsus : Tfae State of Chhattisgarh & ano&er W. P. fs) No. 4626 of2005 Smt Vabha Venna Vereus The State ofChhattfsgEuli & anofher W. P. fol No. 4659 of2005 Suresh KumarTiwari VCTOUS : The State ofChhatdsgarii & another W. P. fel No. 4690 of2005 Hcmjaj Ladeshwar Versus : The State ofChhattisgarh & another W. P. Is) No. 4696 of2005 : Manik Lal Dewaxigaa Vcraus Thc State of Chhattusgarh & aaofhcr W. P. fol No. 4610 of2005 Vcrsus Bramha Ji Dewangan Thc State ofCIihattisgsrh & anotfacr And W. P. fsl No. 5886 of2006 Axnflir Siagh Dewangan Versus The State ofChliattisgarh & anothcr ' ^^; Sla^e Bendi: Hon'bte Mr. Justicc Srtteh K. Agnlhotrl. ShriAjay Shrivastava, Advocate fcv Ifae PetitioncTS. Shri V.V.S. Moorfhy, Deputy Advocate Gen^eralwith Smt Anju Ahuja, Dcpuly Goveramcnt Advocate for fhe State/rcspondents. ORDER (31-t0ctobcr,2006) The petitionera are working as Assistant Teachers/Uppcr Divis»n Teachcrs in fhe govemment schools. In fhe couree offheir services as Assistant Teachera/Upper Division Teachera, the petitioners have obtained B. Ed./B.T,!. exammatk>a certificates tim their own expensesbefore 1.3.1999. Writ Pttition (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 aad 5886/2006 are being disposed of by this common order as fhe facts and questiou of law iavolved in fhese petitions are common. Accordmg to learacd couiisel for the pctitfonera, the petitjoners arc entifled to two advance iocrcments ia view of fhe dccisk)n of titus Court in the case of Yas^want_Kumar Bharadwai Vs, Miinwipql Corporation. Dur^ and anothcr {2006 (II) MPJR-CG 96}. This Court m the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporatfon, Durg and anofher (Supra), came to fhe conclusion that the teachera, who had obtaiaed B, Ed./B.T.I. Exammatk>n Certfficate on fheir twn expenses, arc coveiisd by the circular dated 24.12.98 issued by fhe State Qovemment of Madhya Pradesh. Further ia fhe matter of Smt Manoraina Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others { 2000 (1) M.P.L.S.R. 136 } the Madhya Prad^sh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, white considermg the circular dated 1.3.1999 whcrcin, it is provided that the Assistaat Teachera, who have acquired B. Ed. degree at fheir own cost bclwecn 23.10.1964 and 7.5.1973 shaU be eiititkd to two advance incrcmcnts, rclicd on dccision in fbe casc of Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & ofhera passed in 0,A. No. 4 1632/99, decaded on 12.10.1999 wherein it is obscrvcd that the circular dated 1,3.1999 cannot be made appMcable retrospectivety. Thus, a teacher, may be Assistant Teacher, who has obtaiaed B. Ed. degree before 1.3.1999 is entifted to two advance mcrements. 5. It is pointed out by learacd counscl appearing for the petitioners that fhe tihien State ofMadhya Pnadesh had filed a Special Leave ^ Ptetition s^ainst the oiders passed by fhe Trfl3unal and fhe Hon1t)le Supreme Court dismissed Special Lcave Pfctitk>n No. 1999/2000 fikd agaiast the oider of the TribunaL Therefore, fhe directk>n to the effect fhat the circular dated 1.3.1999 cannot be made appUcable rctoospectivety, passed by fhe Tribunal, becomes final and tfae same sbaU be appUcablc to all fhe Assistaat Teachers who have obtamed B. Ed. examination certificate bcfore 1.3.1999. It is fiirther substaatiated by a circular dated 17.10.2003 issued by fhe present State-of Madhya Pradesh whercin tihe circular clearty states about the decisk>n ofthe Supreme Court. 6. Leamed couiisel for flie petitionera furfher submits fhat fhe fiacts and questfon of law involved ia the present case are squarety covered by decision of fhis Coiirt ia fhe case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Munidtpal Corporation, Dui^ and anofher (Supre^, to which leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondente fairty concedes and agrces with fhe av^rment made by leanied counsel appeadng for fhe petitk>ners. 7. Accordin^y, the writ petitions are aUowed in terms of the order passed m the case of Yashwaat Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Mumcipal Corporation, Durg and anofher (Supre^, subjcct to veriBcation of the fact as to whefher fhe petitionera have acquired B. Ed./B.T.I, Examination Cerdffcate on tfaeir own cxpenses as per the circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 and further whether they have been paid two advance incrcments or not No order as to costs. 8. A copy of fhis order be placed on rccor^, m connccted matters. Subhaah Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge