iKl r- ,.6ffl^ y C^ l IN THE HIGH COVRT OF JUDICATUF®OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.) N0. ?5T- 4-<x /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Chauhan S/o Late Thandarani Chauhan, Aged about 35 years, Occupation Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Gobara, Block Dabhara, Distt : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS ^l ^ ^' State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secrefaiy,School Educatonal Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District -Raipur (C.G.) District Educatidn Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Bloek Education Officer, Block Dabhara, District Janjgir ChampafC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMtJS CERTIQRARY OR_^NY OTHER WRIT QF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner named above aost huinblv and T A'^ -.1 '^ ..^ssS^ 'TE? 'A|l<llct'i), yyl'y'ld. («i<ii«y 3TT^T Tf?RK ^...W.-.&.&J..®S'?.:..^2?/to WKCtT VhHlfi ^^St' sn^i^i h-ii* •an^i sft^W'?Tf?(T 'iflT^l e-KiitiR •«l?a SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINtKBR DIWAKER 03.12.2010 Shri D.R.Patel, counsel for tjie petitioner. Shri Piaveen Das, Dy. G.A. ^x fhe State. The petitioner, wbo was Assistaat Teacher under fhe Sch< appoiated on fhe post of ^ol Education Department on 07.01.97 (Annexure P/2) is agg|Teved by fhe action of ftie respondents iu not addung two ad\ even fhough hc did his D.13d. fe Mandal, Raipur at tiis own cost (aiice increinents ia his salaiy (m C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha |in the ycar June 2003 after seekiag permission for the sanie fi^in the department Counsel for the pctitioner entifled for two advance increrueAts as he had obtained D.Ed Examiaation certificate, in accor Circular dated 24.12.98 aad in vi^w offhe judgments ofHon'ble Supreme Court in. the matter of Badrinarayaa Achaiya and othei^ reported in 1996 SC 2779 aad Yashwant Kuinar Bhardwai Durg and another reported in 200^ (II) MPJR 96 (CG). On the ofher hand, couns^l for fhe State submits. fhat erstwhile State of Madhva Pt-adesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 allowed •advemce govemment servaats who pn) 22.10.1964 whefher at his own c<|>st or at the goveminent cost. However, who proceeded on traini^ig on or afler 23.10. 1964 caa get two aiuiual increments only if|the trainiag is at his cost and not at fhc cost of fhc Govemiiient. This circular of dated ^)l<l[(!l<ft-T *iWV^ "^ fs^ ^t^.R ^T3(POT3n^I ubinits that tbe petitioner is lance wifh. the provisions of State of M.P. Sa Another Vs. Vs. Municipal Corporation, iticreinents only to those ;eeded for training up to 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated l0.12.1975.j|^iff:^. TT yy^. 'C^ ^HC-22 -s^ss-^ y ':lv 'Ss-f j? 'y" /'y ai^r^ii l<;-fi<* sf^y 5hHich^Tf??T -S^ '•qplRTq, 'S^FI®.(°t<11'My Sff^f ~1^5R ......l4..P...l.»>.-)...^M^g} qnCTI 9lWf) |ci<><ar' aii^i ?CTW:afei Govenunent vide notification dAtcd 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class-II Educationaj[ Services (Noa-coBege Services) Recnutmeut and Proniotion Rul B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appoiatiuent on fhe post ofAssistaat Teacher. The petitioner wou|d be entitled for advance iucreinents onty in fhe conditi^n that he had obtaiaed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his obtainiag permission fonn the d to 1,3.99. To clarify the above jtosition, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on &0.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, a^e not iu dispute. TIiis Court in the inatter of Yashwant Ktunar discussiag the circulars dated upon the judgment of the Hontjle Apex Court iu fhe mafter of Badrmarayan Acharya's case (; not assistant teachers alone, wcjuld be entitled to Iwo advance increiacnts on obtaining B.Ed 22.10.1964, as the cireujar prescnbe any outer Umit of the & B.T.I. certificate. It has been (urther held that circiilar dated 1.3.99 is appUcablc to only Assii ofher teachers (UDT). Shri Das fairly submits tt^at priacipk of law laid down in Yashwaat Kumar Bharadwaj's c aad case of fhe petitioner in ttit-t1^*^1 ^TOi'tf ^ ^S%t <f<i|^$!< ^siPtpTan^r s, 1993 added quatiflcation of own cost during semce after partment between 23.10.1964 Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately 24.12.98, 1.3.99 aad relying upra) bas held that teachers, examination cerdficate after dated 22.10.1964 does aot period ofobtainmg B.Ed, M.Ed itant Teachers (LDT) and not to ise (supra) has attamed finality fhls petition is also squarely covered by the above judgi^ent as also ciroular dated •M^.WS.— — — liiife? 1—f: t II .'y' /? XI-HC-22 -.-cS^' 'S'E? •<<i<(i<lit<, »Tiit<'i6. hciiyy 3TI^?T 'VRK ..y:B..^..£fc.T'SGi? "WI. 200 WHWI grfra? fere^r' an^T^r 1?;]W3ii^n stiw fS^s -^ 31I^TTOIIWHfOT payment of troo advance increinenl] of fhe petitioner's D.Ed. examiaa| are accordingty directed to uia^ increineg.ts to the pctitioner from exauunation, within a period o| However, fhis order shaU be subjej q)i*f[<!i<ilt *iw<nf ^ f^y^ Tf^^K iT3lf:(W 311^1 For the aforesaid reasons, ti^e petitioner is entitled to tfae the State re^rdiag facts pleaded i|i thc petition. No order as to costs. Is fixim fhe date ofdeclaiation |ion result. The respondents |e payment of two advance pie date of lius passing D.Ed. p four inonths fiom. today. fct to aU. verifications made by Sd/- PritinkerDiwakar Judge !'^ n "i.-^l' 'ln [:{: ktt-F8ff>