é ® C/ffba/f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. p. (snvo. ‘7£\% OF 2010. $§§§msE§EN$H / . Smt. Gyatri Lata Nag, W/o. Shri B‘ R. Nag, aged about 36 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Girls High School Bacheli, Block ' \A é PETITIONER Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (c. G.) VERSUS // : l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through z The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) / 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Dantewada, District Dantewada, ‘ (C.G.) ’ RESPONDENTS // 3. Block Education Officer, Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 4; Treasury Officer, TreaSury Account and Pension, Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (C. G.) ® {4% u @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE \ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S! NO.7610 OF 2010 Smt. Gyatri Lata Nag PETITIONER K 1AIR 1996 sc 2779 2 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG) \\ Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution . Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. f V ~ Present :- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the g: the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) " (Passed on this 3' day of January, 201 1) s 1. The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistant under the School Education Department on 14-2-1994 (Annexure P/1) is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding advance increments in her salary even even though she did his D.Ed. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost in the year 1999 after seeking permission for the same from the department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entitled for two advance increments the as the petitioner had obtained D.Ed Ekamination certificate, in accordance with the provisions Circular dated 24.12.98 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of MP. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya others’ and in view of the judgment of this this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another? 3. On the other hand, learned 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 proeeeded for trainingép 622191964 whether at his own cost or the Government cost. However, who proceeded on training on after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increments only if the training at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975.’The Government vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class—II Educational Services (Non-college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 199,3 added qualification of B.T.l. or B.Ed degree for The petitioner would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that the petitioner had obtained the B.T.l/B.Ed./B.T.i. degree at her 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 Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of the Supr.eme Court in 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 & B.T.l. certificate. lt has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). Learned State counsel fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (supra} has attained finality and the 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. Sd/— Gowri i . ‘ :Satish K. Agnihotrit‘ Judge