geagkgm 3mg IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH N “Q P AT BILASPUR w.P.(smo. 7g 1w; /2o1o / PETITIDNER Kandru Ram Bhagat, S/o Late Shri Lalu Ram Bhagat(Wrongly shown in Appointment Order as Kundu Ram), ag6d about 49 years, Working as Hsad Master, T.W.D. Primary School,Beldipa(Da1toli), Block —' Farshabahar, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) / VERSUS RESPONDENT$ :1 State of Chhattisgarh Through :— The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Ra1pur (C G ) @‘Ka Trlbal Welfare Department, .. /\\k\\\ QW 2 Ass1stant Commlssmner wa r ’5‘ ?%y Jashpur, Distt.— Jashpur (C.G.) / 3. Block Education Officer, /Block —Farshabahar Distt, Jashpur (C.G.) 4. TreasuryOfficer, Treasury Account & Pension Jashpur, Distt.—Jashpur (C.G.) x WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ® gamer, Wm,W w- ?‘C5) Q7’Q“ {0 E1200 31mm (Wu) mmm mwewm *Wm S5 : HGWELE MR. JUSTICE FR} 28:10.2010 Shri Somkant Vsrma, coun Sghxi Vaibhav Govgrdhan, P The: patitioner, who was Assistant Tgacher under the Sch 20.08.87 {Armsxure Bil) is 8g rsspomian (is in not guiding twa ad even though ha did his BELL at: seeking permission for ths same Gm 1116 department. Counsel fer the petitioner ‘TINKER DIWAKE-R‘ SE1 fm‘ ths petitioner. L‘ for tins Stats. appointee on the post of ool Education Department. on grieved by the action of the vanee increments in his salaiy is own cost it: Mew 1994 after ubmits that the petitioner is emigal for two advance inexem nts’as he had (xbfamed B.Ed Examinatica cex‘éticate, in acco clemce Wim the provisiens of Crircuiar dated. 24. 12.98 ami in v' v of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter o State of MP. 85 Another Vs. Badm'rxarayan Acharya and othe and Yashwant Kumar Bhardws Durg and another reported in 20C On the other hand. cows erstwhile State of Madhva F 22.10.1964 allowed advance government servaxlts who prc 22.10.1964 whether at his own c However, who proceeoed on txai‘o get two annual increments only i1 not. at the cost of the Govern rs reported in 1996 SC 2779 § Vs. Municipal Corporation, 6 (m MPJR 96 (co). e1 for the State submits that ‘radesh vide cimulax dated incremems only ceeded for trainmg ost or at the government cost. mg on or after '23. 10. 1964 can ”the training is at his cost. and nent. This circuiar of dated 28.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated. 10.12.1975. The 1 to those up to m, ‘ . l v XI-HC—78 (Q %© “Maw g¢eq[(© mm 111200 mm<W) WWW mmm WWW WW§WW *Wm Government vide notificaiion da ed 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non-Gazette Class-II Educational Recruitment and Promotion Rul - B.T’I. or B.Ed degree for appoi Teacher. that he had obtained. his o to 1.3.99. To elanfv the above p sition. circmars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 3 .1.09. aiadwaj (supra) elaborately .12.98, 1.3.99 and relying ra) has held that teachers, examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular c ated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the p riod of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed 81; B.T.I. certificate. It. has been f 1.3.99 is applicabie to only Assist: other teachers ([JDT}. Shri Goverdhan fairlv subn (iown in Yashwant Kumar B11 attained finality and case of the pe Facts, as detailed above, ar not in dispute. Thin Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar discussing the circulars dated upon the judgment of the Hon’bl Apex Court in fhe matter of Badrinarayan Achaxya’s case { not assistant teachers alone, wo d. be entitled to two advance ' increments on obtairxing B.Ed The petitioner won ' incxements only in the condit B.T.I/ B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his wn cost during seivice after obtaining permission form the de artment between 23v 10. 1g64 rvices (Non—college Services) , 1993 added quaiification of nt on the post of Assistant entitled for advance tits that principle of law laid {supra} has aradwaj’s case titioner in this petition is also er held that circuiar dated mt. Teachers (LDT) and not to e n } io s e e h 4 V XI—HC 78 © o mm 111200 ......“”Wezw/‘O m W (Wu) WWW wmm WWW“ WW wm awimm ' squarely covered. by the above judgment as also circular dated 24. 12. 1998. For the afomsaid masons, ' payment of two advance incmmeJ of tha petitioner’s B.Ed. examin am according1y directed to m; increments to the petitioner from examination, mthm a period However, this order shall be subH‘uect to all verifications made bV the State regarding facts pleaded Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker 4. the petih'oner is entitied to the its from the date of declaration ation result. The respondents Lke payment of two advance l the date of his passing B.Ed{ of four months from today. No order as to costs. 1'11 the petition. Judge