INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wj'.fS)NO. S903 /2Q11 PETITIONER l^-O o ^ ,\'yi'.ll<^^T10 ^:.^S4^f ^^T^Vor"^ ____/_ ?^A....-"""^^ ' '' VERSUS / Satish kumar yadu S/o Punni Lal Yadu, Aged about 46 years, Upper Division Teacher, M.I.C. Administered, District Education officer, Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham- (C.G.) *•0" HE- -^. ^^^ ftRtHg'iijl.T.J ( RESPONDENTS: 1. State of CKhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education officer, Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) 3. Block Education officer, Bodla, Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF EVDIA The petitioner named above most respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As stated above m the cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE QRDER CS) IMPUGNED AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS MADE. ['»1,., HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPOR SB : HON'BLE MR. JU8TICE PKITUtKER DIWAKBR W.P,t8),NO. 3903/2011 Satish Kuxaar Yadu versus RESPONDENTs Shri Deepak Jain, coiuise] Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur fhe petitioner. , Dy. A.O. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDER AKTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION opismA. 121.07.2011) The pctitioner, who was appoiated on llie Teacher under the School Education Departm.ent (Annexure P/ 1) is aggrieved by ffae action of fhe resp' addinK two advaucc lucremcnt.s ia his sajan- even D.Ed. from C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Maadal, Raipur iu. tbe year 2006 after seeldng permission for flie post of Assistant oa 6.2.1984 at his own, cost sanie froni thc Coiinsel for fbe petittoner submits fhat the petitioner is eatifled for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed ExaBunation. certificate, in accordance wifh the provisions qf Circular dated 24,12.98 and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Coiirt in fhe inatter of State of M.P. & Anoftier Vs. Badrfnariyaa Acharya aad others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kiuuar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Coi-poration, Dvif, and anofher reported in 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG). On fhe ofb.er hand, counsel for tfae State submits fhat erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 aflowed advauce increinents onlv to fliose goveminent servaiits who proceeded for traitiiug up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at the goveraiaent cost. However, who proceeded on train.ing on or after 23.10.1964 caa get two annual incienieiits only if tiie traiaiag is at J i his cost aad not at the cost of fhe Govenunent This circiilar of dated 23.10.1964 was superoeded vide otder dated 10.12.1975. Tlie Goveninient vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amcnded M.P. Nan- Gazette Glass-II Educatioaal Services (Non-coBege Semces) Recruitment and PTOinotion Rules, 1993 added qualification ef B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appoiatment on tfae post ofAssistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance increments onty ia the condition that he had obtained his B.TJ/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at bis owna cost duriag service after obtainlug permission fona the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To cJarify tfae above position, circiilars have atready been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Pacts, as detafled above, are not ia dispute. This Court in the matter ofYashwant Kumar BIiaradwaj (supra) elaboratefy djscussu^ the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 aad relyiag upoa the judgmcnt of (he Hon'ble Apex Court iu the matter of Badrinarayaa Achaiya's case (supraj has held that teachers, not assistant teachers atoae, woiikl be entifled to two advaace iacrements on obtRiaing B.Ed exauunation certificate after 22.10. 1964, as fhe cirsulaT dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe aay outer limit of ftic period of obtainmg B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It bas been furfber held fhat circular dated 1.3.99 is appUcabIe to onty Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). Shri Thakur fairiy submits fhat principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kuiuar Bbaradwaj's case (supra} has attained finality and case of fhe petitioner ia fhis petistion is also sqiiarely covercd by the above judgment as also cucular dated 24.12.1998. Por fhe aforesaid reasons, ffae petttioner is entiQed to fhe payinent of two adva&ce iacreinents .from the date of declaratiDn of the petitioner's D.Ed. examiaatiDn result The respondents aie accordingly directed to malee payment of two advance incrcanents to ffae petitioner froin tbe date ofhis passing D.Ed. examiaation, within a period of four inonths from today. However, tbfe oider shatl be subject to att veiifications niade by the Stete regardiag facts pleaded in fhe petifion. '' No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge