c ^ , ^00 ( THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.y WRIT PETITION (S) N0. r7^/ ^^ OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ?^.-^.^ ^ r^¥^^ <\-^:' ^.-^'^''.••"'"' ...""' ''Y^ ..^1'' '' ...-"" ^y^^^' Shiv Smgh Porte, S/o Baldu Singh Porte, aged about 44 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, Bandhi, Post Jhajhpuri Kala, Tahsi Lormi, District Bilsapur (C.G) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director, Publlc Instructions, Education District Bilaspur (C.G.) District Edueation Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARK AT BILASPUR versus Shiv Singh Porte State of Chhattisgarh & Others Stui P.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. SIiri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. l.12.; The petitioner, who was appoiated on tfae post of Assistan.t Teacher xuider the School Education Department ia year 1993 is ^grieved by the action of th.e respondents i-a not add.mg two advance increiuents in his salary even though he did his D.Ed. fi-om Madhyainik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost ia fbe year 1999 after seekiag permission for the same froia fhe departnient. Counsel for fhe petitioner subiaits fhat ftie petitioner is entifled for two advaace iacrenients as he had obtaaied D.Ed Exaaiination certificate, in accordance wifh the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 aild iu view ofthe judginents of Hontsle Supreine Court ia fhe matter of State oflB.P. Sa Another 7s. Ba&rinarcyan Achcuya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Ydshwaiit Kufn.ar in 2006 fJS SOPJK 96 On the ofher haud, counsel for the State subiaits that erstwbile State of Madhva Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 aUowed advaace iacrements only to those govenunent servants who pToc^fded for traiuiag up to 22.10.1964 whether at his owa cost or at fhe govem-ment cost. However, who proceeded on tTaining on or al'ter 23.10.1964 can get two aunual iacreiaents only ifthe trairung is at Iiis cost and not at the cost ofthe Govenunenf.. This circular ofdated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.1.2.1975. The Goveraiaent vide notification dated 16.6.1973 aiueaded M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educationai. Services (Non-coUege Services) Recruitinent and Promotion Rules, 1993 added quatification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appoia.tinent on fh.e post of Assistant Teacher. The petitiouer would be entitled for advance increinents only in th.e condition that he had obtamed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost during service after obtaining pemussion fomi the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clariAr the above position, circulars ha.ve ah-eady been issued on 6.2.2007 aad on 30.1.09. Facts, as detaUed above, are not in dispute. This Court ia the inatter of Yashwao.t Kum.ar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12,98, 1.3.99 aiid relyuig upon the judgiuent of fhe Hon'ble Apex Coilrt ui fhe inatter of Badrinarayaii Achaiya's ca.se (supra) has Iield fhat teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance iacreinents on obtaming B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as fhe circiilar dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer litnit of fhe period of obtamiag B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.!. certificate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is app'licable to only Assistaat Teachers (LDT) and not to ofher teachers (UDTj. State couiisel fairlv subinits fhat principle of iaw laid down ia Yashwaat Kum.ar Bharadwaj's case (supr^. has attained fia.ality an.d case of the petitioner ia fhis petition is also squarely covered by fhe above judgm.ent as also circular dated 24.12.1998. For fhe aforesaid reasons, fhe petitioner is entitled to the payiaent of two advance increinents from. fb.e date of declaration of the petitioner's D.Ed. exaniination result. The respondents are accoidiagly directed to inake paynient of two advance increinents to the petitioner from. fhe date ofhis passing D.Ed. examiaation, within a. period of four inonths from. today. However, this order shaU. be subject to aU verificatious niade by fhe State regardiag facts pleaded in the petition. ^- — ——— —• No order as to costs. §{)/. \ PritiBker Diwaker \ - .Judge