BEFORE THE HoN’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ‘ w.P.(S) No...§@.3§§f!.2011 PETITIONER : Smt. Archana Satdeve (before WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ‘ (*1 H -" V g,”‘ 000 my ’ 1’( ; marriage Archana Mahobiya), W/o Shri R.K. Satdeve, aged about 36 Years, U.D.T., ,...»f‘ 120- § 1’( Govt. Middle School, Bijlai "" ” Nagar, Patan, District Durg ' (C.G) w VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1/” State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S /'Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education officer Durg (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER wagsmo. 7554/2011 PETKTIONER Smt. Archaxla Sam eve VETS 'LIS RESPONDENTs State of Chhatrisgarh & Others Shn‘ Somkant Verma, coun sel for the petitioner.’ Shn‘ A»V.Sh1‘idhar, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (13.12.2011) The pcu'tioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department in year 1996 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though she did her D.Ed. from Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal at her own cost in the year 2002 after seeking permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the petitioner submits That the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as she had obtained D.Ed Examination certif1cate, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in View of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. in the matter of State of MP. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acha'ya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwq Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (n) WJR 96 (CG). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22. 10. 1964 allowed advance increments only to those government servants who proceeded for training up to 22. 10. 1964 whemer at his own cost or at the government cost. However, who proceeded on training on or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increments only if the training is at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The @ Government vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non- Gazette Class—II Educational Services (Non-college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1998 added qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appointment on, the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost dining service after obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3,99 To clarify the above position, circulars have aiready been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. s Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated. 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of-the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayan Acharya’s case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed 85 B.T.I. certificate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (supra} has attained finality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also circular dated 24. 12. 1998. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increments from the date of declaration of the petitioner’s D.Ed. examination result. The respondents are accordingly directed to make payment of two advance increments to the petitioner from the date of his passing D.Ed. examination, within a period of four months from today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. mm. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge No order as to costs.