/, ^^ ,c'0 Y BEFORE 'EBE HON' BLS. HI6H,C00BT OF CHHATTIS6ABH AT BB1ASPUE W.P.No.J^3_i_J2005 / PETITIOHER : Yasb'want Kumr Bhardwa3»aged bk years, s/o Sbri Neerang Stogh Bhard^®j Upper Bivlsiora Teacher,' Clsiandrasbekhar Azad Hr. Secondary School, Panchslieelnagar, rg (C.G.). 3®£saa' RESPOSBSiTS : (1) HfcmicI-Pal eorp0rgtti.o">^uig,- ..^ ^ i0-7^" j^fe^ ^^ > A:yy •A' ..'^ -'y.^ <'^/-"&' Through—Coaaissioner, nicipal eorpQia'tAon, flarg. (2) State Govt. oi Chbattisgarh Through - Secretary Sehool Education, Secretarlate* D«K.% Bbawan, RAIPBTR. .s' '^ m •IMn PESI'IIOK tINDERARTICIS 226/227 eF'ISE COHSTITOTIOH OFTHHrA. -i VC .1. HIGH CQUKE OF ©HHA'EHSGARHM BILASPUR WTitPetitionNo. 3977 of2003 Pfctitioner YashwaiitKumarBhaidwa] 'l. Versus ' - ^ -: 1 Respondents Municipal Corpoiation, Dvig & another Post fer oider eu ^" Apnl, 200&. JUDSE J ,4.2006 '}:• '•: 1 ;h :.:1 1 1 . ( i. i sjN 1-11 ' !: M Sf: :&i!.':t ijlil i:;ii.sn liSfi •S-^'!^"!, sai ^rS ^S: ll.il ii^ li" HIGH COURT OF CHHA'n'ISGARHAT BILASFUR Wnt^titaoiiNo. 3977 of 2003 Petitioner YashwajitKu.mar Bhardwaj Versus Respoudents Muiu.cipal Gorporation, Durg & aaother Siagle Bench : Honlale Mr. Justice Satisli K.Agaihotri. Shri Ajay Shrivasfava, counsel for tfae petitioner. Miss Shamula Shinghai, counsel forthe respondent No. 1. ti9 : ; ' ; : :: .• ::1 Smt. Anju Aliuja, Deputy Govenuneut Advocate for the respondent No. 2/State. ! i- : i 1 •+ ORDER (03"i April, 2006) Thfi petitioater, beiag aggrieved by the non-p^Tnent of two advance increinents, fer having; obtained B.Ed. exainmatioa certificate at his OWD. / :: ! ! : ! ; • ' .. : cost, has filed this petition seelang awril/directioa •that ffi^ respon(leDits j be direcled to graat two advance uicrements to fhe petitioner fiom thfi *» • • • '. '.'•..'•..' date, fhe petitioaer obtained B.Sd. exammation certificate and tp make tlie p^ineut ofarrearsw.e.f: 13.1.1997. It is further piayed fhat fhe impugBfidoidertlated 24.9.2003 (AimexmeP/l)/where^ fhe pE!l^^ 1 was deru^thstoene&crff^ be quaslied. ) i j 2. The facts in amtsticH. are that thc petitioD.er was employed as^ljpper Division Teacher in Chajadt-ashekliar Azad H%tiEr Secpiidary; Sc-hool, Mumcipal CoFporatton, Duig. Tte^tjtioner obtamEd fi^Eclf. BxaHfflnation certificate at has owncbst<m ^1.1^7 tAnaexureP/^.^M clauns en.tiflcmpiit of l^ a^^ T.7-44/96/20-4 dated^l^t998|(^ exanunafion CerfificatB. ^ The respondent No. 1 by iinpugned letter dated 24.9.2003 (Annexui-e P/1) informed to fhe petitioncr that the petitioner would not be granted two advance iucreinents as only those Assistant Teachers are entifled to fhe benefit of two advance iacreinents, who had obtaiiied B.Ed/B.T.C. trainmg certificate between the period of 23.10.1964 to 7.5.1973 at their own cost. The petitioner has obtained B.Ed. examination certi&cate later on. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, leai-ned counsel appearing for fhe petitioner subinitted that fhe petitioner is entifled to fhe benefit of two advance increinents, after having 'obtaiued B.Ed. exami&ation certi&cate ia January, 1997, in accordaace wifh. fhe provisions of the circular dated 24.12.1998 and (he impugned order dated 24.9.2003 is conteuy to flie law aad deserveis to be quashed. Miss Sharmila Shiughai, leamed counsel appearuig for the respondent No. 1, per contia, subinitted that subsequent circular dated 1.3,1999 inakes it clear that only those Assistant Teachers are entitled to the benefit of two advance increinents, who had obtai&ed B.Ed./B.T.C. tTaiiung certi&cate on their own cost diiring the period SKSVO- 23,10.1964 to 7.5,1973. It was further contended fhat the circiilars arc applfcable to only Assistant Teachers. not to Upper Division Teacher. The petitioner is a Uppcr Division Teacher and having not obtaiiied B.Ed. examination certificate between the period of 23.10.1964 to 7.5.1973, is not entitled to two advaace increments. Having heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and haviug perused tiie records, it is found that fhe firat circular dated 24. 12.1998 was passed in conipliaace ofthe order dated 22.7,1996 passed by Hon'ble fhe Suprenae Court m Civil Appeal No. 9895 of 1996 State of M.?. and anothes Vs. Badrinarayaa Acharya and others ((1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases N \. A -'&. 271}, wherein the Supreine Court, while uiterpreting the circular dated 20.10.1994, has observed as under :- "4, It ia seen fhat the oider is expUcit as under: As pcr Finauce Department's Memo No. 16333-CR-1892-1 VRI dated 22-10-1964, the advance incieinents are to be allowed oiily to those goveminent servants who have received tiainiag at their own costs aad govermnent seryauts deputed for tiainiag at govemment expensfis are excluded froin the grant of advaace increiaeats. These oiders have not beea given reti'ospective effect but they com.e into ferce fiToin the dafe of issue of orders. Accordingly auyone who proceeded for traiuing iip to 22-10-1964 whether at his cost or at govemment'cost, wffl be eUgible to the concession. Those who proceeded on traiciuig on or after 23-10-1964 caa get fhe concession only ifthe trauiing is at his own cost aud not at the cost offhe Govenunent. 5. A reading thereofwould cleariy indicate that sucli ofthose in service who had gone on traiiung to iaiprove their qualifications at the goveminent expenses, would not be eUgible for two advance iucreiaents while those who had gone on traming at fheir own expenses, would be eligible for two advaace inci'einents withui fhe stipulated period inentioned in ftie order.............. The cii-culardated 24.12.1998 (Annexure P/3) provides fhat all the teachers, not assistant teachers alone, as contended by leamed counsel for the i^spondent No. 1, would be entitled to two advance increinents on obtaining B.Ed. examiiiation. certificate after 22.10.1964. The circular does not prescribe outer liinit of the period for obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed., B.T.I. trauiiug certificate. The said circular reads as uader ;- ^ira-f ^^[ RTSTT ^[TT. <<>*11* Vf. 7-44/96/20-4 *1-<l<?i<l qroFT ^TEI-T »lNleT-462004. •qNra 24.12.381 ^ g^. •w^ 311^<W, dt^ ftism, ^t.V. »lNlcT! ^Etpi ^ cqq TR ^t.TfS..VI.TfS., ^.Aan^. anR yRisi"! wa ~^^ TR 3rRtl1 1te'T ^fe ^ ^ 'iraq' ^f | ^f*5a( WW-i SRT W-T. tJ K1*i -i|t41et'>l ^' ^PR 7B.?5tA ~9W 3895 ^ pt1Bfq f^-ri^ 22.7.86-^ 4R4S!?1'1 4 22.10-64 (W wft ^ ftrsrat' <s^ ^ ^(T-T ^fezff ^q gy^ift uit ^qq' aierar yii*i<t>1<i ara TR Tiftrfire t ^ 22.10.64 ^ ?R ^cT ~Wi ^ BPl TR qftrsm vv^ ftraraT ^t ^t ^T ^fe t^ ift ^V^Rr TRT-I ^ W^t tl ifEire^W ^ -ilu-iiqid ^ '•m ^ tfair ani^m^iR. ?TOT/- (STRAqtrf) sra? ^rf^q *f.1a.W<ER, ^yf fc@T f^TPT The circiilar dated 1.3.1999, ^reUed on by leamed counsel for the respondent No. 1, clarified ftie circular dated 24.12.1998 to fhe efFect fhat ttie period of 23.10.1964 to 7.5.1973 for obtauung B.Ed./B.T.C. examinatioii certificate will be applicable to only Assistant Teachers, not to ofher teachers. The present petitioner is a Upper Division Teacher. It has been clarified by order dated 16.8.1983 of the School Education Departiaent, Govemment ofMadhya Pradesh (Annexure R/2) fhat Lower Division Teachers have been redesignated as Assistant Teacher and Upper Division Teachers have been redesignated as Teachers. The circular dated 1.3.1999 reads as under :- "3f. 22-10-64 ^ Tj^ »ll<U«t?i| czra TR ararar <Eqq .^ ara TTT i«si^i<t> ftrsre ^ ''BT ^" gf^rspT vv^ RisitbT ^it ^ arRpi ^Pl—^f^n'^ 311^^11'^'HK 'qanqd ~^!^ ^t'^; srsir L-& 10, 11, 13. x. ^RB aiT^r 'ar-t •asiytb ftrerat ^ RtS cw^ t ftra^ gRi A.i?:s. /^.^.^ft. ^ftrwr ~?tq ^ ap( TR R-ll«t? 23-10-84 ^ 7-5-73 ^ 3R& 4 %lt41q?.Jt -^qT ^' ^ ^q yf i^ir ?t l (^t ftRff %^.V1».-7-44/86/20-4 R'll'* 1-3-499S) On perusal of fhe above stated cmculars, it is expUcit that the circular dated 1.3,1999 is applicable to onty Assistant Teachers '(Lower Division Teachers) and not to ofher Teachera (Upper Division Teachers). The present petitioner is not govemed by the cu-cular dated 1.3.1999. The circular dated 24.12.1998 is stiU rn force with modification and the circular dated 24.12.1998 would be appUcable to alt the Teachers includiag Upper Division Teachers. The circular is very clear to the efFect that atl fhe Teachers, who have obtained B.Ed., M.Bd., B.T.I. etc. trainuig certi&cate are entitled to two advaace increinents. In fhe present case, fhe petitioner, wh.o has obtained B.Ed. exainination certificate on 13.1.1997, iy squarcly goveraed by fhe circular dated 24.12.1998, Por fhe aforesaid reasoas, fhe petitioner is entifled to fhe payinent oftwo advance increments fiom fhe date of declaration of his B.Ed. examination i-esult. The respondents are accordingly directed to inake the payment of two advance increiaents to the petitionerw.e.f. 13.1.1997 till date, within a period oftwo monfhs from today. The petition is accorduigfy atlowed to fhe abcwe extent. No order as to costs. ^ ____—^.—-- Sd/- Satish K. Agnfls.otri Judge Bablu