< BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P.(S) No. »^ OF 2011 PETITIONER Sanjay Kumar Tamboli, S/o Shri V.P. Tamboli, aged abouf 47 Years, Lecturer, Govt. Middle e^' Higher Secondary School, Seoni (Naila) Distt. Janjgir Champa CG VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^••^^. ..s^^ ^•<^c^(" :^\ p"^- -^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary, Education Departmenl: D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) c" 2. Director Public Instruction Raipur (C.G.) <" 3. District Education officer Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. r" ^1 r < HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. ftflr, Justjce Pritinker Diwaker) W.P(S).No. 5640 of 2011 Petstjoner Sanjay KumarTamboli VERSUS Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counselfor the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, PL forthe State. ORDER (2S.09.2011) * The petitioner, who was appointed on the post ofAssistant Teacher underthe School Education Department on 12.12.1988 (Annexure P-1) is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance incrementsin hjs salary even though he did his B.Ed from Indira Gandhi Nationa! Open University at his own cost in the year 2010 after seeking permission for the same from the Department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained B.Ed ExaminatiQn certificate, in aceordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.1998 and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter olState of M.P. & another vs. Badnnaravan Acharva and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also inthe light of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj vs. Municipal Corporation. Durg and anotherreponed in 2006 (II) MPJR9e(CG). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that erstwhite State of Madhya Pradesh vide circufar 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 twoannual jncrements only if the training is at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular dated j' .1: . ^- ^r 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Government vide notificationdated 16.06.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class-11 Educational Services (Non-college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitied for advance increments only on the condition that he had obtained his B.T.t./B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost during service after obtaining permission from the Department between 23.10.1964 and 01.03.1999. To ctarify the above position, circulars have already been issued on 06.02.2007 and 30.01.2009. 4. Facts, as detaiied above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborateiy discussing the circuiars dated 24.12.1998, 01.03.1999 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 for two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circutar dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit ofthe period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I certjficate. It has been further held that circular dated 01.03.1999 is appljcable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). 5. Shri Payashi fairly submits that principie 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 aiso circuiar dated 24.12.1998. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitfed to the payment of two advance increments from the date of declaratlon ofthe petitioner's B.Ed. examination result. The respondents are accordingly, directed to make payment of two advance -3- % Priya increments to the petitioner from the date of his passing B.Ed examination, within a period of four months from today. However, this order shall be subject to ali verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. No order as tp costs. f Sd/- 1 Pritinker Dhvaker Judge