y HI6M COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No. 62570F 2008 PFTITIONER Salil Kant Singh Vs RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & ors <"f t-^ POST FOR OR&ERS ON ^ FEBRUARY. 2009 Judge ?T9't"'''lRF]1': ''^^^1: ^i" '^f ^^/Si-i. ,^^^^ HI6H COURTOF CHHATTrseARH ATBILASPUR PETITTONER RESPONOENTS W.P. (S) No. 6257 OF 2008 Salil Kant Singh, S/o Late Ram Sewak Singh, aged about 44 years, Assistant Teacher Primary School Sirjapur Block Shankargarh, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C6) Vs 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, &istt. - Raipur (C.6.) 2. The District Education Officer, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.6.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block Shankargarh, Ambikapur, bistrict Sarguja (C.G.) Present: Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on ^2.2009) bhirendra Mishra, J; 1. The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the then Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department vide order dated 28.2.1997, is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his B.Ed. Course in the year t988 i.e. before joining on the post of Assistant Teacher, from Purvanchal University at his own expenses. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments, as he had obtained B.Ed. degree before his appointment as Assistant Teacher, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.1998, which was issued on the basis of decision of the'Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. & another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya & others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2779. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh submitted that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 allowsd advance increments only to those government servants who proceeded for training "f ^ k :1~"'^ '^,^^ 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 This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975.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 Sovernment 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 appgintment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that he had obtained their BTI/B.Ed. degree at their own cost during service after obtaining permission from the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.1999. To clarify the above position circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and recently on 30.1.2009. He further submits that these circulars dated 24.12.1998 and 1.3.1999 pertains to the School Education Department and therefore, the same is not applicable in the case of the present petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg & another reported in 2006 (2) MPJR-CG 96 elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.1998, 1.3.1999 and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayan Acharya's case (supr-a) 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 for obtaining B.Ed., M.Ed. & B.T.I. certificate. It has been further held that Circular dated 1.3.1999 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (L.D.T.) and not to other teachers (U.D.T). 6. So far as the argument that circular dated 24.10.1998 is not applicable in the case of teachers appointed in the Tribal bepartment as the petitioner did B.T.I. course before joining the service is concerned, in the matter of Badrinarayan Acharya'S case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the advance increments are to be ollowed only to •V- ':::s%->.. •fs, ^:'l those government servants who have received training at their own costs and Sovernment servants deputed for training at Government expenses are excluded from the grant of advance increments. These orders have not been given retrospective effect but they come into force from the date of issue of orders. Accordingly, anyone who proceeded for training up to 22.10.64 whether at his own cost or at government cost, will be eligible to the concession. Those who proceeded on training on or after 23.10.64 can get the concession only if the training is at his own cost and not at the cost of the government'. Therefore, all the Assistant Teachers who obtained B.Ed./B.TJ. certificate at their own cost irrespective of fact whether they did the above course before they joined service or while they were in service, are entitled for two advance increments. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increments from the date of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher. The respondents are accordingly directed to make payment of two advance increments to the petitioner from the date of his appointment within a period two months from today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. 8. No order as to costs. Judge Roshan/