^'.^m ^ISii-i. »;al i?N>l S.sSSisiei BSSSSS!BSSS l:;ias: /-7. 8. ^- School, Rajpurikhurd, Block Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). Smt Pushpa Tirkey W/o SUvester Tirkey, aged about 48 years, Occupation- Head Mista-ess Govemment Primary School, Saraipara (Bulanga), Block Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). Smt Jayanti Prem Mani Toppo W/o B.S. Toppo, aged about 40 years, Occupation- Assistant Teacher Government Primary School, Bahnijhariya, Block Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). Smt Victoriya Tirkey W/o Ranjit Tirkey, aged about 51 years, Occupation- Assistant Teacher Government Boys Primary School, Rajpur, Block Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). Ripu Daman Singh S/o Late Timal Singh, aged about 57 years,' Occupation- Upper Division Teacher Govemment Girls Middle School, Bramhapara, Block Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPQNDENTS :l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) - /./2. The District Education Officer, Ambikapur Distt Sarguja (C.G.) /3. The Block Education Officer, Block Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). /4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~">., 2L^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4348 OF 2010 Shashi Kiran Jaiswal & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. , Present:- Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 17th day ofjanuary, 2011) 1. The petitioners, who were appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Primary School Block, Ambikapur and Block Rajpur, District-Surguja, are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in their salary even though'they had obtained D.Ed./B.Ed./B.T.I. degree/certificates at their own costs on permission for the same from the department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for two advance increments as they had obtained D.Ed./B.Ed./B.T.I. Examination degree/certificates, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others and in view of the judgment of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anothei^. 3. On the other hand, learned 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 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 Government vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class-11 Educational Sen/ices (Non-college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. 1AIR 1996 SC 2779 2 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG) 6. or B.Ed degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioners would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that they had obtained his B.T.'l/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree/certificate at their own costs during sen/ice after obtaFning permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.1999. To clarify the above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007andon30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.1999 and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Badrinarayan Acharya's case (supra) 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 of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.1. certificate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is applicabie to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). Learned State counsel fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supra} has attained finality and the case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the abovejudgmentasalso circular dated 24.12.1998. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners are entitled to the payment of two advance increments from the date of declaration of the petitioners' D.Ed./B.Ed./B.T.I. examiiiation result. The'respondents are accordingly directed to make payment oftwo advance increments to the petitioners from the date of their passing D.Ed./B.Ed./B.T.I. examination, within a period offour months from today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. _ _ - -- ------- -——- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ashok