SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIW^IER W,,?.(S).!l0.619?/2011 Tiju Ram Lalire versus StateofC.G.fibOthers Shri Somkaat Venna, counsel for fhe petitioner. ShriPraveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondeats. WRIT PETroQN UNDER ARTICLB 226 QP THBJCONSTETUTION OF ISMA The petitioner, who was appomted on flie post of Assistant Teaclier under fbe School Education Departtaent on 30.12.1984 (Annexure P/ l) is aggrieved by fhe action of fhe respondeats ta not addiag two advauce iacrexuents in his salary evea fhough he did his D.Ed. froin. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his owa cost ia the year 2002 ater seeking permission for fhe same froni fhe deparbaient. Counsel for the petitioner submits fhat. the petitioner is entltled for two advance iacrements as he had obtained D.Ed Examiaation certificate, iu accoidance wifh the provisions of Circuiar dated 24.12.98 aad iu view of fhe judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court ia the matter of State ofSS.P. Ss Another Vs. Btuarinarayein. Achfirya <uid others reported ia 1996 SC 2779 and ytishioant Xumar Bhardioq^ 7s. MuniciEpciI Corporertion, Burg <md cinothcr reported m 2006 CT 1WJR 96 (CG). On fhe ofher haad, counsel for fhe State submits fhat erstwhile State of Madhva Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 atlowed advance increinents only to those goveminent seivaats who proceeded for tratning up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at the goveranient cost. However, who proceeded on traiaiag on or after 23.10.1964 caii get two aanual nicrements only if fhe traiaiiig is at his cost aad not at fhe cost of the Govemnient. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12,1975. The Goveriunent vide notification dated 16.6.1973 auiended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-coUege Services) Recruitment aad Proniotion Rules, 1993 added quaUfication of B.T.i. or B. Ed degree for appoiutnien.t on the post of Assistaat Teacher. The petitioner wouM be entitled for advao.cc increments only a. the condition that he had obtaiaed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B-T.I. degree at his own cost durmg service after obtaining pennission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify tlie above position, circulara have ah-eady been issued on 6.2.2007 aad on 30.1.09. Pacts, as detafled above, are not in dispute. This Court in fhe luatter ofYashwaat Kuinar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 aad relyiag upon tlie judgment of the HonT^le Apex Court in the matter of Badriaarayan Achaiya's case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entifled to two advaace iacreiaents on obtamiag B.Ed examination certi&cate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer lunit of fhe period of obtainmg B.Bd, M.Ed Ss B.T.I. certificate. It has been furtfaer held fhat circular dated 1.3.99 is appUcable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly subinits ftiat principle of law laid dowu ia Yashwant Kuiuar Bharadwaj's case (supra) has attained fiuality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by fhe above judguient as also circtilar dated 24.12,1998. For the aforesaid reasons, tbe petitioner is entifled to the paynient of two advance increinents froin fhe datc of declaration of fhe petitioner's D.Ed. examuiation resiilt. The respondents are accordiagly directed to make payiaent of two advance increments to ttie petitioner froni fhe date oflus passing D.Ed. examiaation, within a period of four laonths froin today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications niade by the State regarding facts pleaded ia the petltion. No oider as to costs. '3U'~ PritinSier Diwaker - .Judge