a IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR y^J.. WRITPETITION (S) No/ '^72011 PETITIONBR ^•^ .^" ^ '.<'<^ ^ ^- "\^ RESPONDENTS Jeet Ram Sonwane S/o Shri Prabhu Ram Sonwane aged about 51 years, Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School Kachanda Block-Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) The Block Education Officer Block Nawagarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) The Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "l' COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON*BLS MR. PRITINKBR DIWAKBR W.P.ISS.NO. 7758/2011 RESPONDBNTs versus Jeet Ram Sonwane State ofChhattisgsTh &, Otliers Slii-i Ashwani. Shukla, couiise]. for tlie petiuoner. Shri N.Nafaa Roy; P.L. for the State. WRITPETIT20N XJMDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITl?TION OF 116.12.2011) The petitioiier, who was appomted on the post of Assistaiit Teacher under tiie School Ediication Depai'tment. iii year 1984 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents ni not addiiig two advai^ce increnieiits in. his salar}r even thougb. he did Iiis D.Ed. from ESoard of Secondap/ Education, Bhopal at her own cost io the year 2000 after seekiog pereiissiou for the same from the department. Counsel for Ae petitioner subniits tliat the petitioner is e33titted for fevo advajice uicrenients as he had obtaiaed D,Ed Examiaatiou certificate, in. accordaxice with the provisions of Cii'cular dated 24.12.98 and ixi view ofthe judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court m the matter of Stcste ^fM.P. <& An^ther ys< Badnnarayan Acharym and Qthers reported m 1996 SC 2779 aad YashwciVtt Kumsar Bhcsrdumj ¥s.BSunicipal C^rp^mti^n^ Durg and aaother reported in 2006 (IS MPJS 96 (CG). On the other haad, couiisel for the Stete submits that erst\vhile State of Madliva Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 ailowed advance iacrements ouly to tiiose govem.nient servaiits who proceeded for trainiiig up to 22.10,1.964 whetlier at 'fais owu cost or at fhe goveniment cost. However, who proceeded on traiiiing 011 or after 23,10.1964 can get two anniial nicreinents only if the traiaing is at his cost aiid iiot at the cost of the Govemment. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was siiperceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The ^^,.^::&.^^ ^^^ /f ~"^.. 1, l' ©^^l£fc-..." 1 ^ip^"ii^ ^. "... / J ^^-•' ,^' ^^ ^'"..^ ^•. '' v^ ^y, Goveniment vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-coUege Sen?rices) Recruitinent aad Proniotion Riiles, 1993 added quallfication of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appointnient oa the post ofAssistant Teacher. The petitioner Vv7oiild be entitled for advance iocrements only ia tlie condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree a.t his own cost duruig service after obtainmg peniiission form tlie departme.nt betweeu 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarffy the above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 aiid on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Coiirt ia the niatter of Ya.shwant Kuixiar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussiag the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 an.cl relying upon the judgment of the Hon^le Apex Court ui tlie xnatter of Badrmarayan Acharya's ca.se (siipra) has held tiiat teachers, iiot assistaiit teachers alone, would be entitled to t\vo advance iacrenients 011 obtainiag B.Ed examraation ceilt&cate after 22.10.1964, as tlie circular dated 22,10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtainmg B.Ed, M.Ed & B.TJ. cerfclficate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3,99 is appUcable to oiily Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly subniits that pmiciple of law laid dowxi iu Yashwaiit Kumar Bhax'adwaj's case (supra} has attaiiied finality aiid case oftbe petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgnient as also cii-cular dated 24.12.1998. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advaiice iiicreinents fx-oin fb.e date of declaration of tlie petitioner's D.Ed. examiiiation resiiilt, The respoiidents are accordiagly directed to inake paymeut of two advance iacreinents to the petitioner fi'oni the date ofhis passiug D.Ed. exainiaation, witliin a period of four monfhs from today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications niade by the State regardiiig facts pleaded in the petition, No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge