(Q Singia gamh CD BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.(S) No.......§$........... 2011 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. A PETITIONER / Ramesh Kumar Sharma, S/o v Late Shri Radheshyam Awasthi, aged about 47 Years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Gabhra Patan, District Durg (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS L/ State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education officer Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.§S).NO. 7558/ 201 1 PETITIONER Ramesh Kumar Shanna Vel‘SIIS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8r, Others Shn' Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Sh1‘idhar, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF IND!A ORDER g13.12.2o11) The petitioner, who was appointed on the. post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department in year 1997 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salaxy even though he did his D.Ed. from Board of Secondaxy Education, Bhopal at his 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 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. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwq Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (1D 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 This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975.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 @ Government vide not§cation dated 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non- Gazette Class-II Educah‘onal Sczvices (Non-college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualmcau'on of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petiu'oner 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 during service after obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position, circulam have aheady been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. 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 & B.T.l. certiticate. It has been. further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is‘applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachexs (UD’I‘). State counsel fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (supia} has attained finality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squaiely 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 No order as to costs. in the petition. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge