: GPIKQ 0 @ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'r BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. g q L3 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS / ,3. Ratan Singh Paikra, S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Paikra Head Master 19‘45Government Higher Secondry School Sasha District Janjgir Champa (C.G) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Director Public Instruction Raipur (C.G.) District Education officer Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE /2. 133A CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. . Mme); ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHEATTIW AT BlhA$PUR . B : HOH’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITIWDIWAKWR W.P.(8) R0. 541312011 Ratan Singh Paikm RS ESPONDENT State of C.G. 85 Others A. WRI? ?WIT1¢F UNDER ARTmLE 3361227 OF THE comlTUTIW 0? m Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petit‘oner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. ORDER (15.09.2011) The petitioner, who was appointed on tbs post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Depau unent on 12. 12.1988 (Annexure P/ 1) is aggrieved by the action of the mspondents in not adding two advance incmments in his salaxy even though he did his D.Ed. mm ea. Madhyam‘;ft;smksha Mandal, Raipur at his own cost in the year 2006 alter seeking permission for the same mm the department. CounséI for the petiu'oner submits that the petiu'oner is enu'tled for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed Examinan'on 11 certihcate, in accordance with the pmvisions of Circular dated JC 24.12.98 and in view of the judgnents of Hon'ble Supmme Court in the matter of State of M.P. & Another Vs. Badrinamyan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhaniwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (ll) MPJR ’ 96 (CG). 0n 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 g proceeded for training up to 22. 10. 1964 whether at his own cost or at f the government cost. However, who proceeded on training on or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual’increments only if the taming is at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular of dated Q9 23.10.1964 was superceded vide Older dated 10.12.1975. Thc Government vide notmcau‘on dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazctte Ciass—XI Educau'onal Services {Non—collage Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualmcamn of B.T.I. or B.Ed degxee for appoinmxent on the Post of Assistant Teacher. The peti1ioner would be entitled for advance incxements only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.l. degee at his own cost dun'ng service amr obtaining permission form the depattnent between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the abow position, cimulare have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. g Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and mlymg upon the judgment of the Hon’bleiApex Court in the matter of Badrinarayan Achaiya’s case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination certincate atter 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 85 B.’l‘.l. cem'ncate. 1t has been further held that circulax dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LUI‘) and not to other teachers (UDT). ‘ - Shn' Shanna rainy submits that pn'nciplc of Iaw mid down in Yashwant Knmar Bharadwaj’s case (supra} has attained dnality and case of the pet‘m‘oner in this peu'tion is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also cimulnr dated 24. 12. 1998. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is enn'tled to the payment of two advance increments hom the date of declamh'on of the petidoner’s D.Ed. examination result. The respondents 'are accordingly, directed to make payment of two advance increments to the petitioner nom the date of his passing D.Ed. examination, within a period of four months nom today. However, this order shall be subject to all verincations made by the State regarding facts pleaied in the petiu'on. No order as to costs. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge