- $6M (X‘ We .......... RKNW" W aaxe" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmseA‘RH AT BiLAsPu‘R WRIT PETITION‘[5] No; CoCliq Izooa :- / Dilip Singh Thakur son of Sifar‘am Singh Thakur‘, aged abou’r 43 year's, Assis’ranf Teacher, Primary School; Mainpur'i, Block- Kawardha, Distric‘l‘ Kobirdham [C,G.]. PETITIONER VER5U$ RESPONDENTs :- (1] State of ChhatH'isgarh, 'Thr'ough - The Secre’rary, Depar‘rment of School Educafion, D.K..S. Bhavan, Raipur, Dis’rr‘ic’r Raipur‘ [C.G.]. Dis’rr‘icT Education Officer, Kabirdham [6.6.] Block Education Officer, Kawardha, Disfricf Kabirdham [C.6.] x dL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/% OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT WRITS DIRECTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THE ' MATTER . 209 - mmmia? WWW WWW agwm q; SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER 15.12.2010 Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. s initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under t e School Education Department on 23.12.88 (Annexure PI6) is The petitioner, who rieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance inc ements in his salary even though he did his D.Ed. from C.G. Madhy mik Shiksha Board, Raipur at his own cost in the year June 2004 seeking permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the petitio er submits that the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed Examination certificate, in accordance th’ the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in view of the udgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 9 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg’ nd another reported in 2006 (ll) MPJRN 96 (CG). r ‘ On the other hand, co nsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh de circular dated 22.10.1964allowed advance. increments only to those government servants who >1 proceeded for training up to 2.10.1964 Whether at his own cost or at l the government cost. Howev r, who proceeded on training on or after ?3 1n 1964 nan get ' crements onl ifthe training is at his mam dam: gauna'zr, tamam'i’a wrsn 4742/201 0 .—1 ,uo,ooo. W a a a r i 7 i WWW wmm mmm P.3— www f§$zf§§R %affn'qa1&m " case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also circular c ated 24.12.1998: For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increntents from the date of declaration of the petitioner’s D.Ed. examinz accordingly directed to make pa' the petitioner from the date of his period of four months from today to all verifications made by the petition. No order as to costs. ‘ Amit ition result. The respondents are (ment of two advance increments to passing D.Ed. examination, within a However, this order shall be subject State regarding facts pleaded in the Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge mm E‘WH‘WM, {m im’r‘vé is lrl7~e2/2010 i l ,oo,ooo.