@ singb Bunch BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR lC.G.l CONSTITUTION WRIT PETITON OF INDIA. UNDER ARTICLE 226 9E THE PETITIONER OF 2011 ‘Onkar ‘Onkar Prasad Kaiwart, S/o RR. Kaiwart, aged about 45 years, U.D.T., Govt Middle School, Patrapali, Block Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (CG) m RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Education Department Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2’: Director Public Instruction Raipur (CG) V 3. District Education officer Champa District Janjgir HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HGN’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER yiy4smo. 5005,! 201 1 PETITIONER Omkai' Prasad Kaiwart VCX'SuS RESPONDENTS Stake. of (LG. 6x. Others Shri Somkant Vanna, counsel for the petitionar. Shn' graveén Das, DV. GA. for the Siam. “’RIT PE’K‘ITION UNDER ARTICLE 2%6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA ORDER (29.08.20 1 1} The. pE‘rifioner, who wag appointed on tha past of As'sistant Teachcr under me Schoai Education Dapat‘tment on 12.12.1988. (Annaxum P/ 1) is aggrieved by the amion of the. respondmns in not addmg mo advance increments in his salaw (wen though ha d'ki his B.Ed. from Indira Gamihi National Opem Univ¢rsiry, New Delhi at his own cost in the year 29.7.20 10 aftsr s'eaking pmmis$ion 1131' thé: same. from the department. Coun$61 for me petitionar submits that the pattioner iS entitled for two advance increments as he had obtamed B.Ed Examinatien certificare. £11 accordance With the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in View of the judgments of Hon.’bie Supreme Court in the matter of St¢zte of MP. & Another Vs. Hadrimzrayan Achatya and others reported in £996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwq Vs. Munidpal Carporatinn, Durg and another reported an 2006 {19 MMR 96 (ca). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that. erstwhile State of Madhva Pradesh vic‘te circular dated 22.10.1964 allowed advartee increments oniy to those goveinment servants who proceeded for training up to 22. 10. 1964 whether at his own cost or at the government cost. However, who proceeded on training on or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increments oniy if the training is at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This cireuiar of dated W5 23.101954 was supercedad vide order dated 10.12.1935. The Gavernment vide notiiication dated 16.6.1978 amendai MP. Non— Gazette Ciass-U Educational Services (Non—college Ssrvicas) Recruitm€nt and Prommion Rules, 1993 aided qual'mcation of BffJ. or B.Ed degms for appoimmént on Tbs pom ofAssi$fam Teacher. ’I‘hE ps‘diioner would be cntiflcd for advance incmments onlv in the“ condition that he bad obtaixmd his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degme at his own, cost during service after obtaining permissicm form fhe i dcpartment betwecn 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the ahovs x position, circulars have ah‘cady been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. ‘ Facts. as detai1ed above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elabomtcly discu$sing The Ciro/111m dated 24. 12.98, 1.3.99 and mlying noon the judgment of The Hon’blc Apex Court. in thc matier of Eadrinarayan Acharya’s case (supra) has 11616. that tcachers, not assign-mt teachcrs alone. would b3 emii‘lad to two advance iocmments on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate aftcr 22.10.1964, as the. circular dated 2’2. 10. 1964 docs not pmscn‘bc any outer limit of tho period ofobtaining BEd, MEd & B.T.I. cortiiicate. It has been forthcr hoid that circular datod 1.39%) is applicable to only Assistant Teachers {LD’1‘) and not to other tcachcrs (UD’I‘). Shri Das fairly submits thaf pn'ncipie of law Iaid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (suyra} has attained finality aiid casc of the potitioncr i1: this petition is also squamly 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 petitionei’s BEd. examination result The respondents axe accordingly dimmed to make. payment of two advance increments to the petitioner from the. date of his passing BEd. examination, vdthin a period of four months from ioday. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the oetition. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge No order as to costs. "