PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH C ‘ If ‘ H5357 I,“ / AT BILAspUR (c.G.) W.P.(s) No ......Q. lg}:........ 2011 ‘ Sanjay Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Dhelau Singh Rathore, aged About 55 Years, Head Master Primary School Bendarchi BlockBodIaDistrict Kabirdham C.G. VERSUS State of Chhattjsgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretaly, Education Department, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) District Education officer Kabirdham (C.G.) ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE A. UND M"“" CONSTITUTION M".M OF INDI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTXCE PRITXNKER DIWAKER mmswo. 62511201 1 PETITIONER Sanjay Kumar Rathorc versus RESPONDENTS State of C.G. 85 Others Shn' Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Qhandresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the State] respondents, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (19.10.2011) The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department on 1 1.09.98 is aggn'eved by the acu'on of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his D.Ed. from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Raipur at his own cost in the year 2004 after seelung permissmn for the same from the department Counsel for the petitioner subrmts that the petltioner 1s entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed Examination certificate, 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 ofM.P. & Another Vs. Badrlnarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (11) MPJR 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 Whether 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 This circular of dated 23. 10. 1964 was superceded vide order dated 10. 12. 1975.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 (7W Government vide noti cation dated 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Sexvices (Non—college Services) Recruitment and Promou'on Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appoinunent on the post of Assis‘rant 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.l. deglee at his own cost during service after obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position, circulars have already been issued on. 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Facts, §as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Comt 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 certincate 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 8r. 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. 1 3d]. No order as to costs. " Pritinker Diwaker ‘1 Judge