S~6 SingteB@nch BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ChlHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P(S)No.^ OF 2011 PETITIONERS :1) Gend Ram Chaturvedi, S/o. Shri P.R. Chaturvedi, aged about 43 years, Presently working as Assistant Block Education Officer Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 1 ^"-- ^i^ ^"^w-^ ..•'^:.>- ..:.-•".:A""^>" €^^ ^-^' ^'^v^ ...v2" / - - RESPONDENTS 1) :2) Notan Kumar Garg, aged about 42 years, S/o. Shri Kheduram Garg, Presently working as Assistant Block Development Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) :3) Ram Kumar Kant, aged about 44 years, S/o. Shri Bhakkal, Presently working as Lecturer Govt. High School, Baitalpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ :4) Amrit Lal Baghel, aged about 40 years, S/o. Shri Bhutang Das Baghel, Presently working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Vicharpur, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ :5) Keshav Prasad Chauhan, aged about 41 years, S/o. Shri Dular Prasad Chauhan, Presently working as Head Master, Government Primary School, Naharpara, Sardha, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) - - _ . Versus State of C.G. through Secretary Department of School Education, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2) District Education Officer, District Education Office District BilasDur (C.G.) I. lli 3) Block Education Officer, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) <-"' :4) Block Education Officer, Block Mungeli, District Bilaspur(C.&;) 5) Block Education Officer, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T NIGH COURT OF CMHATTISGARH AT BXLASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinlcer DiwaScer) Writ Petgtion (S) No. 3841 of 2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS VERSUS Gend Ram Chatun/edi and 4 others State of Chhattisgarh and 4 others Shri Mlrza Hafiz Baig; counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pravin Das, Dy. 6.A. for the State. WRFT PETITION UNDER ARTXCLE 226 OF THE CQNSTrruTSOisi OF SN&IA ORDER (18.07.2011) The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, who were appeinted on the post of Teacher vide order dated 30.06.1993 (Annexure P/l) anct petltloners Nos. 4 & 5 who were appolnted as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 29.06.1993 (Annexure P/2) are sggrteved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in their salary even though they dld their B.Ed./S.T.I. at thetr own cost in the year 1989/ 1991, 1990/ 19991 & 1991 respecttvely. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitloners are entltled for two advance increments as they had obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination certiflcate, in accordance with the provisions of Qrcular dated 24.12.98 and in view of thejudgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. & Another Vs. Badnnarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Munidpal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG). 3. On the other hand, counsei for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide drcular dated 22.10.1964 ajlowed advance increments only to those government servatits who proceeded for training up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at the aovernment cost. However. who oroceeded on \/^^ V w. :^^^;^ ^ -9-- training on or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increments only if the training isat his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vlde order dated 10.12.1975. The Government vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non- college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed. degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioners would be entitted for advance increments only in the condition that they had obtained their B.T.I/B.Ed. degree at their own cost during service after obtatnlng permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to i.3.99. To ctarify the above positlon, drculars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. 4. Facts, as detalled above, are not ln dlspute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately djscussing the drculars dated 24.12.98/ 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayan Acharya's case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular 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 held that drcular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Asslstant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). 5. Shri Baig fairly submits that prindple of law (aid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supra} has attained finality and case of the petltioners in this petition ts also squarely covered by the abovejudgment as also drcular dated 24.12.1998. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners are entitled to the payment of two advance increments from the date of dedaration of the petitioners7 B.Ed./B.T.I. examination result. The respondents are accordingly directed to make payment of two advance increments to the petitioners from the date of their passlng ^. ^-. ..—^-'y^'. ^' %^^;L;^"^' '^r.^<' w '} -7- B.Ed./B.T.I. examination, within a period of four months from today. However, this order shall be subject to all verificatlons made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge F;