:^x a. PETITIONER IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. / 7' 72011 ^" Smt. Shakera Begum W/o Shri Refayat Ulla aged about 47 years, Head Master Govt. Primary School Ambedker Nagar Block-Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^m^ .\0" .^'^ ^^.^•'"' ..^' ^ ^'' ..A.'-'' RESPONDENTS VERSUS l.^-State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^'" 3. The Block Education Officer Block Bilha District Bilaspur ^.G.) The Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ^f \$:%T. ,1k WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON>BLB MR. JUSTICB PmTINKBR DIWAKER W.P.iSj.NO. 7737/2011 PETITIOWER ^RESPONDENTs versus Sint. Sta.akera Begum State ofChhattisgarh & Otliers SIiri Ashwani Shiikla, coim.sel for tlie petitioner. Shri N.Nalia Roy, P.L. for tlie State. WRIT PETITIOH UNDER 226 OP THB CONSTITXJTION OFIKDIA ORDER 116.12.2011i The petmoner, who was appoixited on the post of Assistaiit Teacher ua.der tlie School Educati.on Department io. yeai' 1984 is aggrieved by tlie action of tlie. respondents ia not addnig two a.dvaii.ce incresiients iu her salaiy eveu tliough she did her D.Ed. froin Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal at her own cost in the year 2000 after seekiog pennission for the saine from tb.e departnient, Coiinsel for the petitioner subniits ft^at fhe petitioner is entitled for two advao.ee iticrexiieiits as she had obtamed D.Ed Exam.iaation certiiicate, in accordaiice with tlie provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and ia view oftlie judginents of Hon^le Supreme Court hi the matter of Statc of.M.P. & An^ther Vs^ Badrinaraycsn Acharyn and ^thcrs reported m 1996 SC 2779. Yaahwant Bhardwcy ¥s.Munimpal Corporation^ Durg and an^thcr reported, in 2006 (13) MPJR 96 (CG). On fhe other haiid, counsel fbr tlie State submLits tliat erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 allowed advaiice in.creBients only to tliose goveniment servants who proceeded for traiaing up to 22.10. 1964 whetlier at his own cost or at the goveniraent cost, However, who px'oceeded on traiaiag on or after 23.10.1964 caii get two aauual nicrements only if the tramio.g is at his cost and not at the cost of tlie Goveniment. This circulai' of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The %K ^^':.^ '^^.^s^ -A' Gtovemment vide notification dated 16.6,1973 axiiended M,P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-college Ser^ices) Recnutinent and Promotion Rules, 1993 added quaUficatlon of B.TJ. or B.Ed degree for appoio.taient on fhe post ofAssistaat Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance mcrements o?ily io. tlie condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his owii cost during service after obtsiaing permission form the depai-tmeiit betm^een 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clanfy the above position, circulars have ah'eady been issued 011 6.2.2007 aad on 30.1.09. Facts, as detaUed above, are not in. dispute. Tliis Court iii tlie inatter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately cliscussiiig the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 aad relyiiig upon the judgment of the Honyble Apex Coiirt ui tlie matter of Badnnarayao. Achaiya's case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistaiit teachers alone, would be entitled to tv^o advance in.crements on obtamiiig B.Ed exaoiuiatiou cextificate after 22.10.1964, as the cu'cular dated 22.10,1964 does not prescribe aoy outer limit of fhe period of obtaiaiiig B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It has been further held tliat circular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistaiit Teachers (LDT) aad not to otlier teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly subm.its that prisiciple of law laid dowxi ni Yashwaiit Kiimar Bharadwaj's case (supra} has attaiaed finality and case of the petitioner ia tliis petition is also squarely covered by tlie above judgnieDt as also circular dated 24.12,1998. For fhe aforesaid reasons, the petitiouer is eutitled to the paynient of two advaiice iiicrem.ents from the date of declaration of tlie petitioner's D.Ed, examixiation result. The respondents are accordnigly directed to make paym.ent of two advaace increments to tlie petitioner from the date ofhis passing D.Ed. exaxaination, withiu a period of four nionths froiu today. However, this order shall be subject to aU veriJEications niade by the State regardiag facts pleaded iD. tlie petition. No order as to costs. SO/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge