WW @Em i BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ¥ AT BILASPUR (9.6.4 I w.P.(S) No. é ¥ 93 OF 2011 PETITIONER Sayed Akhtar Ali s/o Sayed Zakir Ali ' / ,W aged about 48 years, Post— Lecturér ‘ Govt. Girls Higher Secondry School 0 Lormi District Bilaspur(C.G) .. ’*°° VERSUS / / o RESPONDENTS (l) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2V District Education Officer, Bilaspur ( C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER- ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAH'! AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUS’A‘ECE PRITINKER DEWAKER w.P.gs).No. 5773/2011 PETiTiONER Sayac'i Akhatar A1i V€IS1JS RESPGNDEMTs ' State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri Sam‘kant V6rma, counml for ths petitioner, Shxi Shashallk Thakur, RL. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF THE CON$T§TUTION OF INDEA mama g;s.11.2o113 Tim petitiensr, who was appointad 0n the post of Upper Division Teacher under the Schaol Education Degmftment in year 1987 is aggn‘eved by the action 0f the resyondexlts in 116i adding two advance increments in his saiary even thcugh he did his D.E(i. from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal: Bhepa} at his own cast in the year 2000 after seeking permission for the same from the department. Counsel for the petitioner submits thai the neu'tioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained D,E(i Examination certincafe, in 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 State of M.P. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Achatya am? others reported in 1995 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs.- Municipal Corporation, Duty and another reporteii in 2006 (II) mum 96 {CG}. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Praiiesh vide circular dated 22. 10. 1964 allowed advance increments only to those government servants who proceeded for training up to 22. 10. 1964 whether at his own cost or at the government cost. However, who proceetied on training on or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increments only if the training is at his co/st; and not at the cost-of the Government. This circular of dated v23.l0.19§4‘ Was superceded viCle order dated 10.12.1975. The , Government Vida notification dateci 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non~ Gazetta Class—[I Educational Services (Non college Servlces) Recrultment and Promotion Rules 19§3 added quahiicahon of B T I or B Ed degree for appomtment on the post ofAs31stant Teacher The petitioner would be enhfled for advance Increments only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost during service after obtaining permissicn form the deparhnent between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 a on 30.1.09. Facts, a detailed bove; are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayn Acharya’s \ case (supra) has held that teachers, not asistant tehers alone, would be entitled o two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examin‘on certificate after 22.10.1964, as t cirlar dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It has been further he that circular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (supra; has attained finality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also circular dated 24. l2. 1998. For the aforesaid reasons, he petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increments from he date of declaration of the petitioner’s D.Ed. examination result. The respondents are according directed to make payment of two advance increments to the peer from the date of h pasg D E exama n ped of four month from toda Howev ths order shall be subject to all vericaons made y the State regarg facts pleaded in ition Sdk Pritinker 3iwaar tition is sm d intion Withi a rio s y er i t V ifti b din the pet o s.. N order as to cost.‘ Judge nd s a ad a \ s ac t na he cu ld t t lv k If