(U-l-2n5 2 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CoG.I W.P.(S)NO ^>?(^ OF 2011 ;1. Bhupesh Kumar Janghel, Aged about 35 Years, S/o Shri K.K. Jaiighel, Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Pendary, District Rajnan.dgaon C.CL ,/-2. Krishna Kumar Sahu, Aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Late Jhangal Ram Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Boys Primary School, Kanketara, Distt.^Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS ^.^^- ,^<v\.K-y ^•••^b->"' .^ ».<y ^y/ ^ y'> ^'-1. State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through -Secretary' Education Department D.K. S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^-2. District Education ' officer Rajnandgaon (C.G.) UHDER COISTETUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHMATriSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr, Justice Pritinlcer Diwaker) Wrlt Petition (S) No. 3818 of 2011 PETITXONERS RESPONDENTS VERSUS Bhupesh Kumar 3anghei and another State of Chhattisgarh and another Shri U. R. Koshaley/ counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pravln Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WRFT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COMSTTTUT1QH OF ZNDZA ORDER (18.07.2011) The petitioners No.l & 2, who were appointed onthe post of Assistant Teacher on 31.12.1994 & 30.09.1994 vlde Annexure P/l §iP/2 respectively are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance Increments in their satary even though they did their D.Ed. at their own cost in the year 1999 (Annexure P-3 & P-4). 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for two advance increments as they had obtained D.Ed. Examination certificate/ in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in vlew of the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court In the matter of State of M.P. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Mlunidpal Corporation, Dur§ and another reported in 2006 (II) MP3R 96 (CG). 3. On the other hand/ counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide drcuiar dated 22.10.1964 allowed advance increments only to those Qovernment servants who proceeded for training up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at the government cost. However, who proceeded on traininjg on or after 23.10.1964 can get two annual increments only /'^ 1 fi^^rf^ 1 !\^5JJ ^ ^-^"'^ -2.- if the training is at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This drcuiar of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Government victe notlfication dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class-II Educational Servtces (Non- college Services) Recrujtment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed. degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitloners would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that they had obtained their B.T.I/B.Ed. degree at their own cost dunng service after obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position, drculars have already been issued on 6.2.2007and on 30.1.09. 4. Facts, as detailed above, are not in dlspute. Thls Court Sn the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharactwaj (supra) eiaborately discussing the drculars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayan Acharya's case (supra) has held that teachers/ not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance jncrements on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the drcular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtainlng B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It has been further held that drcular dated 1.3.99 Ss applicabie to only Asslstant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). 5. Shri Koshaley fairly submits that principSe of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supra} has attained flnality and case of the petitloners in this petitjon is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also drcular dated 24.12.1998. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners are entitted to the payment of two advance jncrements from the date of dedaration of the petitioners' D.Ed. examination result. The respondents are accordingly directed to make payment of two advance increments to the petitioners from the date oftheir passing D.Ed. examlnation, within a period of four months from today. However, this order I '.' ''• \ '' 1 I ; t \ •: ' •^•,il ;iHS^X. j 1 'r. ^. -3" shall be subject to all veriflcatlons made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petitjon. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge