•BBB @» LE b 'S^^-i BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. ^ O OF 2011 •'sr PETITIONER \^l...-^^ ^ ^! ^ ..s^^ b^f^^ ^^w RESPONDENTS Prahlad Singh Netam s/o Shri Late Shri Anjor Singh Netam Head Master Aged about 36 Years, Govt. Priraary School Akalwara Block gurur District. Durg C.G. VERSUS 1. 'Tt^State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretaiy Education Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) I". District Education officer Durg(C.G) 3. Block Education Officer Gurur District Durg(C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATn8Q&RH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PmTISKER DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR RESPONDENTS W,P.LS).NO,^SOl/2011 Prattlad Siagh Netam versus State ofC.G. SB Others Shri Soinkant Venna, counsel &r fhe petitioner. Shri Bhasker Pyasi, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTIOS OF INDIA ORDBR (28.09.201 Ij The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistaut Teacher under ttie School Education Departruent on 07.09.1995 (Annexure P/5) is aggrieved by ftie action of the respondcnts iu not addirig two advaace iticrenients ia his salaiy even though he did his D.Ed. froia Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost iu the year 2000 after seekmg permission for ttie saine frctsn fhe departm.ent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that fhe petitioner is entitted for two advaace iacrements as he had obtamed D.Ed Exainiaatiou certi&cate, ia accordan.ee with fhe provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 aad iu view offhe judgments of HonTiIe Suprenie Court iu the matter of State ofM.P. Ss Another Vs. Bcitlrlneirageat Achcwyet <uid others reported m 1996 SC 2779 <uut Yashwewt Kvwmar Bheirdwe^ Vs. JUunIdptd Corponrtfon, Oarg and dnothcr reported in 2006 p? SSPJR 96 ((XI). On the other band, counsel for the State submits fhat erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vule circular dated 22.10.1964 aUowed advaace iacreineuts only to fhose goverruiient servants who proceeded for training up to 22.10.1964 whefher at his own cost or at fhe govenuaent cost. However, who proceeded on traiam.g on or after 23.10.1964 caa get two aunual iticreiuents only if fhe training is at his cost and aot at the cost ofthe Govenunent. This circular ofdated .^S^ s^s^t~ ,y ^^ '^^, 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Govenunent vide notification dated 16.6.1973 ainended M.P. Noa- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-coUege Services) Recruitnient aad t>roinotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appoiutment on the post ofAssistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance iacreiacnts only in ftie coudition that he had obtaiaed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost during semce afijer obtaiiung permission form fhe department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarity fhe above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and OD. 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not ia dispute. This Court ia the luatter ofYashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing fhe circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon thc judgment of fhe Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayaa Achaiya's case (supra) Iias held that teachers, not assistaat teachers alone, would be entitted to two advance iucreiaents on obtaining B.Ed exammation certificate after 22.10.1964, as fhe circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe aay outer Umit of the perkid of obtamiug B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. ccrttficate. It has been fiirther held that circular dated 1.3.99 is applfcable to only Assistaat Teachers (LDT) aad not to ofher teachers (UDTj. State counsel fairly submits fbat principle of law laid down ia Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supra} has atteuxued finaUty and case of tfae petitioner iu 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 payiaent of two advaace iacrcinents from. the date of declaration of the petitioner's D.Ed. exatnination result. The respondents are accordingly directed to make payinent of two advaace iacreiaents to the petitioner fmva. the date ofhis passing D.Ed. examination, wifhia a period of four inonttis from today. However, fhis order shall be subject to aU verifications inade by fhe Statc regarding facts pleaded in the petition. . ——— No order as to costs. l: