C'3yr?i ^ ^^^^.f, &INVLI: fcl|:WI;rf IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) W.P.rS)NO. fcQ^) /2011 ? PETCTIONER ^M^ ^ ...^y,,<^ ^\^y '^^' ^y.,--"ri? '^^^ 'y RESPONDENTS : Tilak Ram Patel S/o Banshidhar Patel, aged about 44 years, Head Master Gvoernment Primary School Gohdideepa, Block Pusore, bistt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.' The District Education Officer, Raigarh (C.6.) '^ 3. Joint birector, Treasury Account <& Pension Bilaspur Division bistt. Bilaspur (C.G.) .^" 4. Block Education officer, Block Pusore, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITCON U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA The petitioner named above most respectfully begs to submit as under:- l\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIBGAESH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PR1TINKER DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RESPOKDEHTs W.P.IS1.NO. 6909/2011 Tilak Ram Patel versus State of CMi&ttisgarh & Others Shii D,R.Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.Nalia Roy, P.L.for the Stete. WR3T PBTITIO!? UHDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOII OFiHDIA ORDBR 123.11.2011) The petitioner, who was appoiuted on the post of Assistant Teacher uiider Uie School Education Departinent in year 1994 is aggrieved by the actiou of tlie respondents isi not adding tevo advaiic-e in.crem.ents iii his salaiy evesi though he did his D.Ed. from. C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Maiidal, Raipur at his own cost ta fhe year 2004 after seeking permission for fhe same froni tlie departaient. Counsel for &€petitloner subinits that ttie petitioner is entitled for two advance m.creraents as he had obtained D,Ed Examination certi&cate, m accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in view ofthe jiidgiiients of Hon'ble Supreme Court iii the matter of State o/M.P. Ss Another Vs. Badrinearcigcsn Acharya and ^thers reported ia 1996 SC 2779 esnd Ycsshwant Kuniar Shardwctj Vs. Munidpcd C^rparation^ Durg and another reported m 2006 (I^ MPJR 96 (CG). Ou the otlier haad, counsel for fhe State submits fhat erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10,1964 allowed advaiice iiicrem.ents only to tliose goveiTi£D.ent ser^ants who proceeded for traiaiag up to 22.10.1964 whefher at his own cost or at tlie goveniraent cost. However, who proceeded on trainiag on or after 23,10.1964 can get two anuual iD.crenieiits only iftlie traiaing is at his cost aad not at fhe cost offhe Goveranient. This circulai' ofdated 23.10.1964 was siiperceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The i %} -^; j^ </'?'l '•€, Govemnient vide notification dated 16.6,1973 aaiended M.P, Non- Gazette Class--II Educational Services (Non-college Services) Recruitoient and Prom.otion Rules, 1993 added quali&catiou of B.TJ, or B.Ed degree for appoiataoaent on fhe post ofAssistant Teacher, The petitioner would be entitled for advance iacreiiients only ia fhe condition fhat he had obtamed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost during service after obtamiag permission form. the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify Uie above position, circulars have alt'eady been issued on 6,2,2007 aad on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not isi dispute. This Court ia fhe nxatter of Yashwaat Kuin.ar Bbaradwaj (supra) elaborately discussing fhe circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of fhe Honyble Apex Court in fhe matter of Badrmarayaa Achaiya's case (supra) has held tliat teachers, not assistaiit teachers alone, would be entitled to two advaace iacreinents 011 obtaming B,Ed exainuiatiou certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated 22,10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of fhe period of obtaiamg B.Ed, M.Ed & B.TJ. certi&cate. It has been furfher held fhat circular dated 1.3.99 is appMca.ble to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly submits that piinciple of law laid down ia Yashwant Kuro.ar Bharadwaj's case (supra} has attaiaed finaUty aad case of fhe petitioner in fhis petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also circular dated 24.12.1998. For fhe aforesaid reasons, fhe petitioner is entitled to the payinent of two advance iiicreiDLents fi-om. the date of declaratiou of the petitioner's D.Ed. exainmation resiilt. The respondents are accordnigly directed to xnake payinent. of tavo advaiice iiicremeuts to ttie petitioner from. fhe date ofhis passrag D,Ed, exaoiinatiou, wifhin a period of four montlis from. today. However, this order shaU be subject to all verifications niade by fhe State regardiag facts pleaded ia the petition. No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge