DWARKESH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of all other connected matters as per list appended hereto. In all the petitions the petitioners are claiming for two advance increments on the ground that they have passed B.Ed. examinations at their own expenses, and as per Policy/Cricular of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, they are entitled for the same. Admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed between 1973 to 1.1.1992 and they all have passed B.Ed. examinations at their own costs between the year 1988 to 1999.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have filed and have also placed strong reliance on two Circulars of the State Government, i.e., Circular dated 16.2.1998 (Annexure A -3) issued by the State of M.P., department of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Ministry for grant of two advance increments to the teachers, who have passed B.Ed./M.Ed./B.T.I training examinations at their own costs after 22.10.1964 and by another Circular dated 24.12.1998 (Annexure A -4), the State of M.P., Department of School Education Ministry has also directed the Commissioner, Public Instructions, M.P. Bhopal to grant two advance increments to the teachers, who have passed B.Ed./M.Ed./B.T.I. at their own costs after 22.10.1964. He has also cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Badrinarain Acharya and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 271, wherein it has been held, thus :

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in various other cases the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal has allowed payment of two advance increments to those teachers who have passed REd. examinations at their own costs and submitted that in case of Smt. Manorama Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2000(1) MPLSR 136, a similar direction has been issued by the Tribunal. Similarly, while deciding O.A. No. 1405/2000 (Azad Khan v. State of M.P.) along with other identical matters the Tribunal has also allowed the claim of two advance increments in accordance with the Policy of the Government and has already given direction for payment of the same to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also cited an order passed by the SAT in O.A. No. 76/2000, in which the Tribunal had directed for payment of two advance increments to the siml1arly situated teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited a decision of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in O.A. No. 184/98 (Dharmendra Kumar Jain v. State of M.P.) decided on 7.4.1998 for grant of two advance increments after acquiring B.Ed. degree at their own costs and quashed the direction about the recovery of amount already paid to them and disposed of the petition finally with a direction to the respondents to allow two advance increments to the applicants and has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Badrinarain (supra) and two orders passed in O.A. No. 778/93 (M.P. Teachers Association and others v. State of decided on 22.7.1997 at Indore Bench and O.A. No. 427/94 (Hirja Rajni v. State of M.P.) decided on 12.2.1998 at Gwalior Bench.