'»i!f N^- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. S'&0& OF 2011 PETITIONER .^o. ^•WU^M^^:is'"-)^..:--1'T ^e^M.^T^^?l '^e&.---" V- ^" Gopal Singh Garga s/o Shri Late Shri Radheshyam Singh Head Master Aged about 45 Years, Govt. Primary School Bahrritola Block Gurur District. Jsf^f-DvLTg C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS l.tt^State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary Education Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education officer Durg(C.G) 3. Block Education OfGcer G)^TUV i-!i!'An c- Durg(C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT Oi? CHHAmseARH AT BSLASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKER PETITIONER W.P.(S1.NO. 5800/2011 Gopal Siugh Garga versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Somkaat Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chaudresh Shriwastava, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTIOK ORDER (28.09.2011) The petitioner, who was appointed oa the post. of Assistaiit Teacher under the Scbool Education Departiuent on 22.09.1994 (Aniiexure P/5) is aggrieved by the action ofthe responde&ts iu not addnug two advaace increiaents in his salaiy even fhough he did his D.Ed. froin Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost ta the year 2001 after seeking permission &r fhe sanic fi-om ttie department. Coiuisel for the petitioner submits fhat tbe petitioner is entitled for two advance iacreinents as he had obtamed D.Ed Examiriation certificate, ia accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 aad in view of the judgiuents of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uie matter of Stdte oflS.P. Ss Another Vs. Badriiuircyam. Acheayv and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 eusd Yashwant Kvma.r BkeirSsvaj Vs. JKTunicrfpcd Co»porcrtion,Durg and einather reported in 2006 CT MPJK 96 (CG). „ On fhe ofher hand, counsel for fhe State submits ftiat erstwhfle State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 aUowed advaace in.creinents only to tfaose govenuiient servants who proceeded for teamuig up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at fhe govenunent cost. However, who proceeded on tTaiaiug oa or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increnients oiily if fhe teaming is at his cost aad not at the cost offhe Goveminent. This circular ofdated 1 23.10.1964 was superceded vide ori.er dated 10.12.1975. The Qovemment vide notffication dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-coUege Services) Recruitment aad Proinotion Rules, 1993 added quaiification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appouitment on the post ofAssistaat Teacher. The petitioner would be entifled for advaace uicienients only in the condition that he had obtaiued his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at bls own cost during service after obtaming permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position., circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not ia dispute. This Court in the matter ofYashwant Kuinar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing fhe circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 aad relyiug upon fhe judgment of fhe Hon'ble Apex Conrt ia fhe matter of Badrinarayaa Achaiya's case (supra) has held that teacheis, not assistant teachers atonc, would be entitied to two advaace nicreinents on obtauiiaR B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circuter dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe aay outer limit of fhe period of obtamiag B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It bas been further held that cireiilar dated 1.3.99 is appUcabIe to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fan'ly subauts that pnuciple of law laid down in Yashwaat Kuraar Bharadwaj's case (supia) bas attained finaUly aad case of the petitioner iu this petition is also squarely covered by the abovejudgineiit as also circular dated 24,12.1998. For fhe aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to fhe payment of two advance uicienients froiu fhe date of declaiation of fhe petitioner's D.Ed. examination result. The respondents are accordingly directed to raake payiaent of two advaace increments to fhe petitioner froin fhe date ofhls passing D.Ed. exanunation, withia a period of four inonfhs frotSL today. However, tfais ordcr shaU be subject to aU verifications inade by the State regardiag facts pteaded in the petition. No oider as to costs. S jydsse