UMTHEHON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.(S)No. ^(,2> 2011 ^ PETITIONER ... /•' ^0}.!^^ .rfst ...A-""' ^-y" ..•••"°' ...••'"'Q?^-"^ ...-•••"' ^r>-",...,c^-" J..,.-•"' ^^^1 ^ }/l^'\ Bhagyavant Barihaaged 30 years Son ofShri Indro Bariha, Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School, Dumardeehkal<>,Block Rajnandgaon. Tah.and Distt Rajnandgaon C.G. &s'a\.S&-"' RESPONDENTS... VERSUS / 1. -ffxLState Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan,Raipur(C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G. 3. Block Education officer Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgao, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DIRECTION OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WR|T. Petitioner furnishes the particulars of the writ petition as under:- : 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER : As stated above. 2. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS : As stated above. e' 'i' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAiai AT BII-JUSPUR SB : HOK'BLE MR. JU8TICB PRITIMKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.ISl.lK). 5763/2011 Bhflgyavaut Bariha versus State ofC.G. & Ofhers Shri Soiakant Vemia, counsel fer the petitioner. SIu-i Yashwaut Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRTT PBTITIOH UNDBR ARnCL]^226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF IWDIA ORDBR (27.09.2011} The petitioner, wbo was appoiuted oa fhe post of Assistant Teacher under the School Bducation Department on 31.12.1993 (Annexure P/5) is a^rieved by the action of fhe respondents ia not adding two advance increments in. hls saJaiy even though he did his B.Ed. &oiu Pt. Sunderlal Sliarma (Mukta) Vishwavidhyalaya, Bilaspur at his own cost ia 2011 after seekiag pennission for the same from the departinent. Counsel for flie petitioner submits that fhe petitioner is entifled for two advance increiaents as he had obtanied B.Ed Exaraiuation certificate, ia accordauce wifh the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and iu view offhe judgments of Hon'ble Supreiae Court in the matter of State ofSS.P. Ss Aiwther Vs. B<atrlnan®«*nAcheuya. emd otSters reported m. 1996 SC 2779 emd Yeshwcint Kunuv Bheirdwe^ Vs. Jffiutictpal Corporcttion, Durg euul another reported m 3006 (Xg JHPJR 96 (CC^. On the other hand, counsel for ftie State subaiits fhat eistwhite State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.101.1964 aUowed advance iacrements onty to thosc goverument servants who proceeded for training up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at the govctiuaent cost. However, who pioceeded on traumig on or after 23.10.1964 caa get two annual increiacnts oiity if fhe traiaiag is at his cost and not at the cost offhe Gtoverument. This cucular ofdated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Q ffl Govermnent vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Semces (Non-coBfigc Services) Recruitment aad Promotion Rules, 1993 addcd qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appouitiaent on the post ofAssistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitted for advance iacxieiaents onty iu fhe condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degrec at his own cost during semce after obtamiug permission form fhe department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the abow position, circulars have already been issucd on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not iu dispute. This Court ia tfae niatter ofYashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supr^ elaborately discusang fhe circiilars dated 24.12.98, l.3.99 aad relyiag upon ftie judgment of fhe Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrmarayan Achaiya's case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers atonc, would be entifled to two advaace iacremeats on obtamiag B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer lunit of the period of obtauiiag B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certiftcate. It has beea furfher held fhat circular dated 1.3.99 1s applicable to on]y Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). Shri Thakur fairly submits fhat principle of law laid down ia Yashwaat Kuinar Bharadwaj's case (supra) has attaiued finaUty and case of fhe petitiouer in this petition is also squarely coveped by the above judgment as also circular dated 34.12.1998. For fhe aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entifled to flie payment of two advance iacrements fix>ru the date of declaration of the petitioner's B.Ed. exanuuation result. The respondente are accordingly directed to inake payment of two advaace iacrements to fhe petitiorier frova. fhe date ofhis passing B.Ed. examination, mfliin a period of four inonths 6-om. today. However, this order AaU. be subject to atl verifications niade by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petitkin. No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge i