aingm Emmh ’ 5 0 L/ (D @ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P (S) No. AZ qZ of2011 PETITIONER //: Smt. Lalita Borkar, aged about 44 years, Wlo Shri Bheeshma Borkar, Headmaster, Government Girls Middle School, Gendatola, Block-Chhuriya, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. RESPONDENTS Block Education Officer, Block- Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT EETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THEEONSTlTQTlON OF INDIA ‘(C.G.) District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gS).No. 66961201 1 PETITIONER Smt. Lama Borkar VErSuS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattjsgarh 8:. Others Shri Vijay Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri AEV.Shridhar, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU’HON OF INDIA ORDER g16.11.20113 The petitionelg who was appointsd on thc post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department in year 1999 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in her salary even though she did her B.T.I. from Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at her own cost in the year 1992. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as she had obtained B.T.I. Examination certificate, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in View of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. in the matter of State ofM.P. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwqi Vs. Municipal Corporation, Burg and another reported in 2006 (1.0 WJR 96 (CG). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh 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 proceeded on training on or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increments only if the training is at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Govcmment vide notiflcation dated 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non— Gazcttc Class—II Educational Serviccs (Non-college Sewices) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added quah'fication of B.’1‘.I. or B.Ed degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner would. be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T,I. degme at his own cost during service after obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Facts,‘as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulais dated 24.12.98, 1.8.99 and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayan Achaiya’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.’I‘.I. certiiicate. It has been further held 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 iinality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also circular dated 24. 12. 1998. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increments from the date of declaration of the petitioner’s B.T.I. examination result. The respondents are accordingly directed to make payment of two advance increments to the petitioner from the date of his passing B.T.I. examination, Within a period of four months from today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. 1 Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge No order as to costs.