t E IN THE HIGH COURT 30F CHHATTI GARH AT ILASP R 9 § x . 3 ‘ ‘ TITIONE l t t t i PER : _ A mm— 5 11 20 2 10 Shn Somkant Verma, c Shri Praveen Das, Dy. The petiu'oner, who mspondents in not adding two advance increments in is salmy even though he did his D.Ed. mm Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own c st in the year June 2000 after seeking permission for the mm the department. t Counsel for the peh'tionur submits that the peitioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had cbtained Ed Examination cextilicate, in aceoniance’with the provisions of Circular dated 24. 12.98 and in View of the judgments of Hon’ble Supxeme Court in the matter of State of M.P. 6s Another Vs. Badrinamyan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and ‘Yashwant,Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Coxporation, Durg and another reported in Q‘OO6 (II) MPJR 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 naming on or after 23. 10. 1964 can get two annual increments only if the training is at his cost and [Vila nn'ir o G h D. s m“ m Ging‘l‘” not at the cost of the Government Tlus clmular of dated 23 10 1964 was superceded vnle order deted 10.12.1975. The Government v1de nowcated dated 16.641973 amended MP. Non-Gazette Class-II, Educational Services kNon-college $e1vices) , 1993 added qualidcation of BTI/BEd/BTI degree at h1 own cost dunng semce after obtammg penmssmn form the d partment between 23 10 1964 to 1 3 99 To clan§r the above osmon, cuculars have already been Issued on 6 2 2007 and on 0 1 09 Facts as detalled above not in dispute This Court 1n the matter of Yashwant Kumar hamdwaJ (supra) elabomtely dlscussmg the c1rculars dated 24 12 98 13 99 and relymg upon the-judgment of the Hon’ Apex Court in the matter of Badn'narayan Acharya’s case (s pm) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, w be entitled to two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate after 221011964, as the cincuiar ted 22.10.1964 does not pzescribe any outer limit of the p riod of obtaining. B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certiiicate. It has been rther held that cimular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assis+nt Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UD’I‘). i E i , I L [1133 ‘ifi'fri: J s b o a Shri Das fairly submits Yashwant Kumar BhamdwaJ s ‘ and case of the petmoner m covemd by the above judg] 24.12.1998. For the aforesaid masons‘ the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increme of the pcthioner’s D.Ed. exaxmj axe accordingly dimcted' to m increments to the petitioner fron examination, Within a period However, this order shall be sub} the State mgaxding facts pleaded No onier as to costs. t‘hat pmc1ple of law 1a1d dOWn 1n ase {supra} has attamed Iinahty th1s petmon 1s also squamly nent as also Circular dated .nts h‘om the date of declmalion‘ lauon xesult The Iespondents ake payment of two advance 1 the date of his passmg D.Ed. of four months hum today. ect to all veridcations made by in the Retition. L~x Sd/— f § Pritink‘er Judge Diwaker L . [do ){r ; ‘